IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38086 of 2008 SUBODH YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 5.9.2008 Heard. The petitioner approached the lower court with a renewal prayer and that was dismissed. It appears that five witnesses have been examined during the trial including the informant and at least three could be found supporting the participation by facts relating to post occurrence conduct of the petitioner and others. The three witnesses have named three petitioners including this petitioner Subodh Yadav. The contention is that a Bench of this court has granted bail to Sobhil Rai @ Sobil Rai and Ramdular Rai by order passed in Cr.Misc.Petition no.8989 of 2006. On perusal of the evidence what I find is that the two, been granted bail by a Bench of this court, have not been named by the witnesses examined during the trial and, as such, their case appears quite distinct from that of the present petition. I am inclined under the facts of the case not to grant bail to the petitioner and - 2 - direct the court below not to rue the state of trial that the defence lawyer is adopting some delaying tactics, rather to look into his heart and identify his own duties and control the proceedings which has to be his own endeavour and not of any other persons. The court could be doing it with heavy hand by cutting down upon unnecessary questions and with better involvement of his mind to the proceedings. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )