IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.740 of 2008 SATISH PRASAD SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 29.9.2008 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant writ application the petitioner prays for conclusion of the Sessions Trial No.69/95 arising out of Bibhutipur P.S.Case No.90/93 dated 11.8.1993 under sections 147, 148,149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act instituted by the petitioner who is the informant of the aforesaid case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as all 14 accused persons could not appear at a time before the court below the Sessions Trial was bifurcated into three different Sessions Trail No.69/95, S.Tr. No.69A / 95 and S.Tr.No.69B / 95 and as such he prays for amalgamation of the aforesaid cases. Learned counsel further submits that 14 accused persons have been made accused in the aforesaid Bibhutipur P.S.Case No.90/93 under sections 302 and other allied sections of the I.P.C. and section 27 of the I.P.C. dated 11.8.1993. He submits that some of the accused persons absconded and some were nabbed later on, three separate trials have been carved out from the aforesaid case which are continuing in the same trial court being Additional Sessions Judge – cum - F. T. C. No.2, Samastipur. He further submits that accused 2 persons are terror in the locality and even they have killed the F.I.R. named two witnesses of S. Tr. No.69/95 for which a separate case being Bibhutipur P.S. Case No.13/02 dated 31.1.2002 under section 302 and other allied sections of the I.P.C. was filed against Tuntun Singh. He submits that some of the accused persons are in jail in different cases also. Learned counsel for the State submits that it would appear from the impugned order dated 19.7.2008 passed by the learned trial court in Sessions Trial No.69/95 that all the three cases are pending at different stages. He submits that the application under section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by some of the witnesses has also been allowed by the trial court. He submits that S.Tr. No.69/95 has reached the stage of judgment, whereas in S. Tr. No.69 /95A charges have been framed and in S. Tr. No.69/95B charges are yet to be framed against the accused , Madan Singh. Learned counsel for the State submits that as such the learned trial court has rightly rejected the prayer of the amalgamation of the aforesaid three cases. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties as S.Tr. No.69/95 has reached the stage of judgment, I do not think it proper that the aforesaid trial be amalgamated with the other two trials, namely, S.Tr.No.69/95A and S. Tr. No.69/95B. However, this Court finds that as the stages in respect of the trial of the accused persons of the two cases are similar, in such situation this Court directs that the Trial No.69/95 and S.Tr.No.69/B be amalgamated for easy and expeditious disposal of 3 the case, as the matter is of the year.1993. With the aforesaid observation this writ application is allowed. Anilksinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)