IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.48650 of 2008 MURAT BIND, son of late Jagrup Bin, resident of village – Goi, P S – Chand, District – Kaimur at Bhabua. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bhulan Singh son of late Bachchan Singh resident of village Goi, P.S. Chand, District – Kaimur at Bhabua. ----------- 02. 12.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned APP for the State. The short submission made against the impugned order dated 7.11.2008 on behalf of the petitioner is that there is an earlier order where liberty has been granted to the petitioner (defence) that defence may recall the said witness on his cost for cross examination. Order was passed on 24.10.2008. When the occasion for the same arose petition for deposit of cost and summoning the witness was filed, it was rejected by the court below. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that order is already there but the petitioner intentionally has chosen not to deposit the necessary cost for further cross examination of the witness and therefore he wants to delay the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was awaiting the order / direction of the court for deposit of the cost. The act was bonafide on behalf of the petitioner. Be that as it may, as a final indulgence to the petitioner, he should deposit the cost within two days of the direction of the trial court with regard to recall of the doctor. The trial court shall ensure that there should not be inordinate delay in trial beyond reasonable - 2 - time on this score. The application is allowed. It is made clear that the petitioner has responsibility to ensure that witness turns up after court’s order. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)