IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2923 of 2011 BINOD PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 30.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and for the informant. Renewing the prayer for bail in a Police case under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, it is submitted that contrary to the undertaking given on behalf of the prosecution, witnesses did not appear promptly leading to delay in the trial and continued detention. The report at Flag-A has been perused. Six witnesses are mentioned to have been examined. Counsel for the informant submits that thereafter the informant has also been examined which has not been denied by the petitioner. That leaves only one private witness more apart from the Doctor and I.O. Summons is stated to have been issued against the official witnesses. At this stage when the trial is at the verge of conclusion, the Court is not persuaded to reconsider the prayer for bail. If the report of the bailable warrant issued against the private witness is not received with 2 promptness in the trial Court and the witness is not produced, the Court below is directed to appropriately examine the desirability of proceeding under Section 350 of the Cr. P.C. against the concerned. It is the bounden duty of the Superintendent of Police and the Civil Surgeon, Gopalganj to ensure that the official witnesses appear. The trial Court shall adequately also refer to the information furnished by the Police department and Health department with regard to the places of posting of the officers concerned forwarded by the Registry of this Court to all District Judges so as to expedite their appearance. Let the trial be expedited in the aforesaid manner. The application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)