IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.W.J.C. No.194 of 2011 SHAMBHU PRASAD @ SHAMBHU LAL, S/O SRI GAYA LALA, R/O GRAM LAUND, P.S. SIRDALA, DISTRICT NAWADAH, COORDINATOR BHARASTACHHAR MUKTI MORCHHA, SIRDALA, DISTRICT NAWADAH .. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, PATNA 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HEAD QUARTER), BIAHR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NAWADAH, SRI VINOD KUMAR 6. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAJAULI, SRI AJAY KUMAR 7. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, SIRDALA, S.K. MANJHI 8. THE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAJAULI, SUMESHWAR LAKDA 9. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAJAULI, SACHHIDANAND PANDEY 10. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAJAULI, GAJADHAR PRASAD YADAV .. RESPONDENTS **** For the petitioner .. Mr. Indradesh Prasad, Adv. For the State .. Mr. A.K. Upadhyaya, S.C. XX With Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, A.C. to S.C. XX **** /2/ 28 February 2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for State. Admittedly, petitioner had filed another 2 criminal writ petition bearing Cr.W.J.C. No. 1092 of 2010, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 26.10.2010. That order is contained in Annexure 9. The only ground for moving this Court, again, is alleged laxity on the party of the trial Court in not concluding the trial. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should look into the evidence of the witnesses recorded during the trial of the petitioner and hold him innocent. The earlier order of this Court discloses that while dismissing the writ petition the Division Bench has already issued a direction to the Officer-in- Charge of Rajauli Police Station as well as Superintendent of Police, Nawadah, to produce the witnesses before the trial Court in connection with trial of Rajauli P.S. Case No. 86 of 2008 so that trial of the petitioner who is in custody since 2008 is expedited. As per direction of this Court the trial Court is required to take proper action for production of the witnesses 3 and expeditious disposal of the case. We are of the considered view, in the facts of the case that petitioner has been ill-advised to file such a successive writ petition. In the earlier order there is an observation that from the averments and documents, annexed with the earlier writ petition, it transpired that a series of writ applications/criminal revision applications have been filed by the petitioner for the relief claimed and by different orders those writ applications/criminal revision applications have been disposed off. In our view, the writ petition is devoid of any merits and is, accordingly, dismissed with costs of rupees five hundred payable to the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within two months. S.A. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Gopal Prasad, J.)