IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38282 of 2008 DEEPAK KUMAR SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR - - - - 2. 9.9.2008 Heard. The renewal prayer has been made by the accused of Special Case No.32 of 2006, pending present before the Additional Sessions Judge IX, Patna, who is also the Special Judge under the N.D.P.S. Act, on the ground that in spite of being in custody since 21.6.2006 the learned trial Judge has not even explained the charges to him, least to talk of framing the same. In support of the above contention, the attention of the Court was drawn to the order rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner and it appears that there is no mention of the fact that any charge has been framed, on the contrary, it appears from the order dated 1.9.2008 that accused Amit Kumar is seeking time after time for producing an order of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 21042 of 2008. This Court is not aware as to since how 2 many dates the said accused is requesting the court to adjourn the case from one date to the other so as to issuing any direction to the learned trial Judge for acting in a particular manner but this much could be said that if the learned Judge has passed orders on framing of charges and in spite of having given three weeks of adjournment in instalment of 15 days and 7 days the accused could not produce any order of this Court as he is supposed to do, then the learned trial Judge is supposed to pass orders framing the charges and explaining the same to the accused. If the accused who is on bail does not appear, then his bond has to be cancelled and coercive steps have to be taken for seeking his presence before the trial court. I believe that the Additional Sessions Judge is trained enough to identify his duties and is further sensitive enough to understand as to what could be the implication of the accused remaining in custody without any trial. The Court believes that the charges either have already been framed or explained or it could be done in one month time next 3 succeeding. In case accused Amit Kumar does not appear the court could act under the provision of Section 317 of the Cr. P.C. bifurcating the trial of the petitioner and will proceed to dispose of the trial. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)