IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15767 of 2009 UMANATH SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 14.10.2009 Heard. Regard being had to the facts of the case and the allegation as recorded in the fardbeyan and on that basis in my earlier rejection order dated 8.10.2007 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 45563 of 2007( Annexure 1), I am not inclined to direct the release of the petitioner on bail as he appears to be the assailant of the deceased. The report submitted by the learned trial Judge at Flag ‘A’ is quite amusing and indicates as to what capabilities have been bestowed upon him by the system. In spite of the Officer having worked for quite some years in the Judiciary and in spite of having issued a production warrant, the Officer was reporting that the accused could not be produced before him and in spite of finding the order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 52893 of 2008 on record of the trial court he was reporting to this Court that the order was not up before him. I simply do not understand 2 as to what impression the Officer wanted to give to this Court on his efficiency of being an Officer in the Superior Judicial Service. The approach appears deplorable. Let this order be transmitted to the Hon’ble Inspecting Judge of Nalanda Judgeship so that his Lordship could view the whole situation in his own nice way. As regards the prayer for bail, the same is dismissed. However, the court below is reminded to consider that the petitioner is in custody since 27.12.2006 and his last prayer was dismissed by me on 8.10.2007, i.e., some two years ago and the court has not even been able to get the accused produced before him in spite of the court’s orders. It is directed to conclude the trial in a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order, else, shall submit an explanation of his failure to dispose of the case to the Court on its administrative side. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)