IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43846 of 2008 AMARJEET SAO … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri Gagandeo Yadav For the State: Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP ----------- 4. 23.12.2008 Heard. The case is under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and it is not at all shown by the prosecution as to what could be the mode of commission of the offence. The alleged marriage had been solemnized in 2001 and the lady was blessed with a son also. There are materials to indicate that the lady was not ready to live at the house of the petitioner, the husband, allegedly because she was ill-treated and tortured for the reasons as indicated in the F.I.R. There is support of the allegation that the lady was killed. The petitioner submits that on account of certain reasons which could be very personal to the lady she was not residing in the house of the petitioner and, as such, when she was brought back from her 2 parents’ house she committed suicide. The Court could not have a definite opinion at this stage of the case. It appears that some of the accused who bore allegation of pouring kerosene oil or setting her on fire have been admitted to bail as per the submissions, but the petitioner also being the husband is alleged to have administered poison. The conflict on the manner of killing of the lady is there but the circumstances appear not allowing the release of the petitioner at this stage. The report of the trial Judge appears at Flag ’A’ and according to it the charges were framed on 17.5.2007 and in a period over one year, i.e., by 25.10.2008 when the report was scripted the court could not be able to getting a single witness produced before it. The trial of Sessions Trial No. 184 of 2007 is going on before the Fast Track Court and the petitioner is in custody since 22.6.2005, i.e., for about three and half years. The learned Judge does not appear at all disturbed about or any bit sensitive to the situation as is obtained 3 before him on account of the pendency of the trial in which no witness was examined and the accused is in custody. The report of the court below could indicate as to how the Fast Track Courts have been working in our State and how could be lethargic. This Court could direct the trial court to pull all strings attached to its fingers and ensure that the trial is concluded within nine months from the date, a copy of this order is produced before him or received by him, else, the Judge could explain as to why he could not do it. The Joint Registrar, Monitoring Cell, Fast Track Courts, of this Court shall monitor the hearing of the above noted case in his own manner and present a report after conclusion of the period before the Hon’ble Inspecting Judge of the Judgeship of Nalanda at Biharsharit. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)