IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40807 of 2010 SUSHIL SINGH, SON OF SRI LALLAN SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 30.03.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was refused bail by an order dated 18.5.2010 on the ground that there was direct evidence against the petitioner of having fired at the deceased. It has been submitted that subsequently, a number of witnesses were examined including the injured under Section 164 Cr. P.C. but none of them named the petitioner. However, on going through the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C., I find that the same was recorded almost eleven months after the occurrence and, therefore, it has absolutely no meaning. Considering that there is direct allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to review the earlier order. The prayer for bail is once again rejected with a direction to the Trial Court to expedite the trial. The Trial Court is well advised to send a list of the witnesses to be examined fixing specific dates for each of them to the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur, who shall ensure appearance of the witnesses so that there is no further delay in the trial. Let this order be communicated to the 2 Superintendent of Police, Hajipur at Vaishali in connection with Hajipur Town P.S. Case No. 517 of 2007, through FAX at the cost of the State. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)