IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19133 of 2008 1. RANJIT KUMAR 2. RAKESH KUMAR BOTH SONS OF SRI MITHILESH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SARBAHADI, P.S. MANPUR, DISTRICT NALANDA. 3. MITHILESH MAHTO 4. SANJEEV MAHTO BOTH SONS OF LATE KAILASH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KHANDAKPAR, STATION ROAD, P.S. BIHAR, DISTRICT NALANDA. ---- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. KRISHNANDAN SINGH, SON OF SRI RAM SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KHANDAKPAR, STATION ROAD, P.S. BIHAR, DISTRICT NALANDA. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 2 13.11.2009 The petitioners are aggrieved with the order dated 17.4.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 796 of 2003. By order dated 12.7.2004 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25678 of 2003 this Court passed the following order: “In the facts and circumstances of the case Bihar P.S. Case No. 305 of 2001 and Complaint Case No. 750C of 2002 arising out of a protest petition appear to be a case and counter case, this Court in the interest of justice considers it proper that both the cases be tried together.” In view of the aforesaid order, the Court below ought to have considered hearing the cases together. It appears that the petitioners of Sessions Trial No. 690/2007 have approached the High Court against the order of cognizance and against the order of discharge. The order of cognizance was challenged vide Cr. Misc. No. 25678 of 2003 which resulted in the order quoted above. The challenge to the discharge has been filed vide Cr. Misc. No. 7682/2007 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.9.2007. 2 The present position is that the opposite party had already approached the High Court challenging the order refusing to discharge which has been upheld by the High Court. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in Sessions Trial No. 796/2003, the witnesses have appeared and the evidence has been recorded and the matter is now fixed at the stage of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereas in Sessions Trial No. 690/2007, it would appear that the charges have to be framed. Obviously the order passed by this Court for conducting the trial together has been diluted by the opposite party no. 2 by virtue of the fact that they had exercised their legal right to move this Court against the interim orders passed by the Court below. The result is that the Sessions Trial No. 690/2007 is lagging behind. It would be in the interest of justice that as per the earlier order of this Court, the Trial court may expedite the trial 690/2007, frame charges and examine witnesses and complete the examination of the witnesses within a period of three months. An undertaking has been given on behalf of the petitioners that they would be producing the witnesses on the date fixed by the Court below. After the evidence of the witnesses is closed, the Court is directed to hear the arguments in both the trials together which would facilitate the Court in coming to a just decision of the case. With the observations aforesaid, this application is disposed of. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)