IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39019 of 2008 KEDAR NUTT Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 11.9.2008 Heard. The petitioner bears an identification and that situation did not change and as such the merit of the petition could not be reconsidered. However, the new circumstance which was brought into the notice of the court is the framing of the charges on 20th December, 2007 and non-production of the witness up to 23rd April, 2008. This is a regular feature. The court is being confronted with from almost all Judgeships that in spite of charge being framed in Sessions trials, there is no production of any witness for months together. The present case, i.e., Sessions trial No.154 of 2007 is being tried by the Fast Track Court-II,Gaya and I believe that the learned Judge could have many more cases in which the accused persons could be in custody but for that matter a man could not be left into custody without his trial really being taken up with urgency. The presumption that an accused is innocent till finally convicted is the part of the human - 2 - rights and if a court is keeping his trial pending without examining a witness or doing nothing towards its conclusion then it could be said with some amount of reasonableness that the learned Judge himself is encroaching upon the human rights of a person. A Judge may be having many safeguards but the safeguard does not make such an insensitive human being as not consider expeditious trial of an accused. I believe that the learned Judge who presides over the Fast Tract Court-II,Gaya appreciates the present observations and acts accordingly and ensures that the trial is concluded in a period of one year from the date of the receipt/production of the copy of the present order. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )