IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34282 of 2008 KANHAIYA PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 3.12.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner, Counsel for the State and Counsel for the Informant. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by an order dated 3.12.2007 in Cr. Misc. No. 39170 of 2007 wherein an observation was made that the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in case the trial of the petitioner was not concluded within a period of six months. The present bail application was filed on 13.8.2008 in the light of the aforementioned observation of this Court. This Court being noticed that four out of nine witnesses had already been examined in the month of September, 2007 itself had called for a report as with regard to the stage of trial and the time likely to be taken in concluding the same. A report has been received from the Trial Court which is a Flag-X and the relevant portion thereof reads as follows:- “In this connexion it is submitted that of the nine witnesses cited in the chargesheet seven have been examined. One witness present on 22.10.08 could not be examined for the failure of the jail authorities to produce the imprisoned accused Kanhaiya Prasad, a 2 phenomenon encountered daily and in a majority of cases. The trial of the case is likely to be concluded very soon, hopefully within two months.” It is thus clear that even though witness was present on 22.10.2008, he could not be examined because it was the petitioner who was not produced from the custody. This is quite disturbing. The District Judge & Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif is directed to look into this aspect of the matter because the Trial Court has recorded in its report that such has become a regular practice and the progress of the trial is being impeded on account of non-production of the accused from custody. The District & Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif therefore, will not only address himself to this problem but would also take all remedial action to ensure that the pace of the trial is not impeded at least on account of non-production of the accused persons from custody. In view of the fact that the Trial Court has set out a time limit of two months for concluding the trial and counsel appearing on behalf of the parties have informed this Court with both the remaining witnesses are official witnesses namely the doctor and the investigating 3 officer, it is expected that the trial would be concluded within a period of two months from today. The Trial Court is therefore directed to ensure that barring unforeseen eventuality, the trial must be concluded within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event, the trial is not concluded within the aforementioned time limit, the petitioner will initially move the Trial Court for grant of bail and on being rejected with reasons as to why the trial was not concluded, he will have the liberty to move this Court. With the aforesaid observation and direction this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)