IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29906 of 2010 MD. GULFAM @ BUNTY SON OF MD. MUSLIM Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 27.4.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence u/ss.414, 379, 411, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 401 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was refused bail by an order dated 24.11.2009 vide Cr.Misc.No.23651 of 2009 since there was material against him that he is in organized crime of stealing motorcycles and selling them off. In view of such, I am not inclined to review the earlier order. The prayer for bail is once again rejected. From the report of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna, I find that she has expressed difficulty in framing charges since only one of the accused persons had appeared from jail and she waited for the next accused so that joint charges could be framed. In my view, the Magistrate should not have done this. Henceforth she should proceed with framing of charges against the appearing accused even if it means multiciplity of work for the Court, since it is often seen that when there are many accused persons the stage of framing of charge becomes a bottle neck if the Court insists on framing charges jointly. If at that stage the Court takes care - 2 - to frame charges against the accused as and when the accused persons appear this menace would be reduced substertratly and the trial will proceed smoothly. Let this order be communicated to the Magistrate concerned. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )