IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29427 of 2009 MANOJ SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 7.4.2010. Heard Sri Shakil Ahmad Khan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. Considering the allegation and the recovery of the arms and the nature thereof, the court is still not inclined to direct the release of the petitioner on bail. Petition is dismissed. However, the court is not happy about the way the learned trial Judge is proceeding with the hearing on as small an issue as framing of charges. The learned Judge has already heard Public Prosecutor on 23.11.2009 and had granted adjournment for further hearing under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. fixing the case for that purposes on 5.12.2009. This could be indicative of the lethargy we suffer from in paying attention to the cases in which the accused persons are in custody. The issue of deciding to frame or not to frame the charge appears fit to be decided in not more than five minutes of time if the Judge has applied himself - 2 - to the facts of the case. The court believes that the learned trial Judge is required to buckle further its belt up as also to pull up its socks so as to understand the urgency of hearing matters in which accused persons are in custody. It was a torrid time for this court to avoid blushing in face of the arguments of the learned senior counsel who was time and again minding this court that the petitioner was in custody and further that notwithstanding the observations of this court, the petitioner might have been tried by a Magistrate. Whether the offence could be tried by the Magistrate or not but the offence and the recovery of the arms, to me appears fit that the case was tried by the court of Sessions. At any rate, the seriousness of the offence I have already indicated in the very first line of the present order and considering that I am not inclined to direct the release of the petitioner on bail. However, the petitioner could not be confined for indefinite period. If the trial of the petitioner is not brought to conclusion by - 3 - the 31st of March, 2011, the petitioner shall be released on the Ist of April, 2011. The office shall remit the copy of this order immediately to the court below for compliance. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )