IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12516 of 2009 RAMESH SHUKLA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/ 20.05.2009 Heard Sri Shiva Shankar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Dasrath Mehta, Advocate for the State. The grievance of the petitioner, who has been held the assailant of the deceased in my earlier rejection order contained in Annexure-1, is that in spite of being in custody since 4.1.2008 after voluntarily surrendered before the C.J.M. and his trial is not being expedited. His grievance is further contended by the submission that this Court by its order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 6507 of 2009 had directed the learned trial court to give reasons as to why the trail could not have concluded if it had started. It is contended that the learned trial Judge, i.e., F.T.C. V, Rohtas at Sasaram did not even pay necessary heed to the above direction of the Court and went on to reject the petition of the petitioner for bail including that his prayer had been rejected twice by this Court. The court does not appreciate the manner in which the Presiding Officer of F.T.C. V, Rohtas at Sasarams has - 2 - refused the prayer for bail of the petitioner in Sessions Trial No. 397 of 2007. He was directed to assign the reasons and it could be said that he has failed miserably in discharging his duties. The court below could be directed to be cautious in future in ignoring the directions of this Court. Coming to the further submissions it was contended that charges were framed on 18.9.2008 and the summons were issued on the same day fixing 6.11.2008 as the date for recording the evidence, but the case was adjourned to 4.12.2008 and from that date to 20.1.2009. The contention is that it is in complete violation of the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. or the rules on demand. It is further contended that no special reasons have been assigned for giving adjournment and specially such a longer adjournment. I have noted down the arguments for the benefit of the court below so that it learns how to perform judicial duties in accordance with law. It is further indicated to the court below for producing the witnesses. That could send a notice to the Officer-in-charge of Kargahar police station which had investigated Kargahar P.S. Case No. 122 of 2002 appending a list of witnesses thereto and direct him to - 3 - remain physically present in the court on all dates of hearing with the witnesses. The court could send a copy of the notice along with the list of witnesses to the S.P., Rohtas also for information and compliance. If the witnesses are not produced, then the court below could make a reference to this Court for necessary legal action to be initiated against the Officer-in-Charge. As regards the prayer for bail, the same is dismissed in expectation that the court below follows the directions of this Court and concludes the trial at the earliest. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)