IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2166 of 2009 MD.AIZAZ@ AIZAZ son of Mde.Aadil at present resident of Meera Road, Faiza-IP, P.S. & District Thane (Maharastra), permanent resident of Meera Saray Sota Mohalla in front of Haji Mitha Iwala, P.S. Badsun,District Badaun(U.P.) … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri Najmul Hoda For the State:Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP ----------- 2. 20.1.2009 Heard. The ground to renew the prayer for bail is non-conclusion of the trial within a period of two months from the date of framing of the charges as per the provision of Section 437(6) Cr. P.C. The learned Sessions Judge has indicated in his rejection order that the pendency of the trial was on account of not-production of the petitioner before the trial Magistrate. Section 437(6) is not a provision mandatory, it may be directory and that could be dependant only on various circumstances. It is not the exclusive domain of the court, like, production of the accused, production of the witnesses and other evidence in the form of documents, etc. The trial court could take steps but it has 2 no agency at its disposal and command to ensure the conclusion of the trial within a particular timeframe. Such provision could never be construed as mandatory. The nature of the offence has already been indicated by me in my earlier order. The petition is dismissed. Kanth (Dharnidhar Jha,J.)