IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34787 of 2009 DEO NARAYAN MAHTO, son of late Baudhu Mahto, resident of village- Baraul Tola Thalhi, P. S. Babubarhi, District- Madhubani…. Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------- 6. 30.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner, husband for offence under Section 304 B and other allied sectionsof the Indian Penal which gets corroborated from the statement of witness in paragraph 4 of the case-diary, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is, accordingly, rejected. It is, however, a matter of grave concern that Investigating Officer of this case has tried to dupe this Court by giving misleading report. This Court considering this aspect of the matter as recorded in the order of Session Judge rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for bail that the investigating officer had not cared to get the statement of the informants recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 2 which was found to be necessary in view of the conflicting statement of the other witnesses, had called for a report vide order dated 17.11.2009 as to in what circumstances the Investigating Officer had not got the statement of the informant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. despite there being a necessity and/or direction of the Superior Officers, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted his explanation which is at Flag ‘A’ and from which it would appear that after submission of charge-sheet on or before 13.10.2009 he has gone to get such statement of informant recorded under Section 164 only on 24.11.2009 and has mentioned in his report that due to inadvertence on his part the same was not recorded in the case-diary. If the statement of the informant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not recorded by the Investigating Officer before the submission of charge-sheet, the obvious conclusion would be that he had got the same recorded on 24.11.2009 only after an explanation was called for from this Court by an order dated 17.11.2009. In such circumstances, this Court would direct the Superintendent of Police, Madhubani to initiate 3 disciplinary action against the said Investigating Officer for both dereliction of his duty and also for submitting a misleading and false report to this Court for a major punishment and submit his action taken report to this Court within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Let a copy of this order be accordingly sent to the Superintendent of Police, Madhubani for compliance. At this time, the trial court is directed to ensure that the trial of the petitioner is expedited and completed within a period of nine months from today. In the event, the trial of the petitioner would not be completed in the aforementioned period, it would be open for the petitioner to initially move the trial court which then would record its reason for not concluding the trial within the aforementioned period and whereafter only the petitioner can renew his prayer for bail before this Court. With the aforesaid observation and direction this application is disposed of. Kanchan/ (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)