IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46699 of 2008 PALLABH KUMAR RAI … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri Mukul Kumar For the State:Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP ----------- 3. 26.11.2008 Heard. The chief reason for filing the present renewal prayer is that the learned counsel Shri Mukul Prasad was not heard as he could not appear before the Bench on 22.9.2008.That appears the reality. But any how, the first order dated 19.5.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15650 of 2008 appears considering all the pros and cons of the matter. For the reasons assigned therein as also for the reason that the victim has squarely held the petitioner responsible for everything, the Court is not inclined to reconsider its rejection order earlier passed. However, considering that the petitioner is in custody since about one year, I could direct the learned trial Judge to conclude the case within one year from the date of production/receipt of a copy of the present order. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)