IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47396 of 2008 BHUND YADAV … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri Jitendra Pandey For the State: Shri Dashrath Mehta,APP ----------- 3. 12.1.2009 Heard. The petitioner’s plight of remaining in custody is of his own creation. He is in custody in a case under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code which was initiated in the year 1988 and in spite of all efforts the petitioner did not surrender to the custody of the court. He was arrested on 18.4.2007 as appears from the petition which could be 13.4.2007 as is reported by the Fast Track Court I, Jehanabad. The trial of the petitioner was separated at the very stage of committing the case to the court of Sessions and on arrest of the petitioner and his production the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges have been framed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code on 14.1.2008 and the Learned Judge who is trying the case has reported that in spite 2 of having taken all steps for production of the witnesses, within a period of about a year, none has been produced before him. The learned Judge has also issued warrant of arrest non-bailable through the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad also but that also goes un-responded and unexecuted. I could direct the learned Judge to direct the Officer-in-charge of Jehanabad Police Station which has investigated Jehanabad P.S.Case No. 311 of 2008 by issuing a notice to him in the light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Shailendra Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar: A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 270 and append therein a list of witnesses as cited in the chargehseet and direct him to remain physically present with the witnesses on all dates of hearing. Undue adjournments or latitudes must not be granted to the prosecution and in case the learned Judge finds that his orders are not being heeded to then he could very well slap an attractive cost against the prosecution in the light of the provision under Section 309 Cr. P.C. which could be realized from the 3 officer-in-charge of the Police Station. The trial, at any rate, has to be concluded within a year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order, else, the petitioner could be approaching this Court again with the prayer for bail. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)