IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40245 of 2008 MANTA THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 22.12.2008 Heard Sri Umakant Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri D. Mehta, APP for the State. The report which was called from the learned trial Judge appears at Flag ‘A’. I am not satisfied with the manner in which the report has been submitted. The learned Judge appears suppressing some of the important events relating to the pendency of the case. The learned Judge has not mentioned that the charge has been framed on 9.8.2006, which is the submission of the learned counsel. It is further contended that during the period over two years there was no witness examined and the learned Judge has indicated that summons, warrant of arrest and processes under Sections 82 & 83 Cr. P.C. have been issued by the court. But despite that, no witness has come forward to depose in the case. The court would have appreciated as to what steps taken were against the police officials, who was sitting tight over the processes. If the court had - 2 - examined the provisions of the IPC, it could find sufficient mechanism laid down for tackling such situations and file complaint petition against the police officers concerned, who were sitting tight over the processes by not executing the same. Besides, the learned Judge does not appear aware of the provisions of Section 170 (2) of the Cr. P.C. and the latest development on that branch of law. In the case of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 SC 270, trial Judge has to issue notice to the Officer-in-charge of the police station concerned to remain physically present in court with witnesses, who were charge-sheeted by the police while submitting the charge sheet. The petitioner is in custody since 10.5.2005 and this court has indicated this fact while seeking report by order dated 21.10.2008. I could direct the learned Judge to buckle his belt up and further pull the strings attached to his fingers, so as to ensuring that witnesses are really produced before him by issuing processes. This court is interest in knowing about the actions to be initiated by - 3 - the learned Judge. The trial has to be concluded in a year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order of this court. The court is not inclined to direct the release of the petitioner on bail because he appears the assailant of the deceased. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)