IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41371 of 2008 BIMAL DEVI @ BIMLA DEVI … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri Ashok Kuimar-1 For the State: Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP ----------- 3. 11.11.2008 Heard. The report which was called for from the trial Judge appears at flag ’A’ according to which the learned Judge expects to conclude the trial within a year. The renewal payer is on the ground of no progress in the trial and confinement of the petitioner for about 14 months or so. The merits of the matter were also attempted to be touched upon by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner but the Court has already noticed those facts and contention in its earlier order and it does not see any reason to reconsider it. The renewal prayer appears inconsequential in the light of the report of the trial Judge who has reported that he will conclude the trial within a year. It could be expected that the learned trial Judge always reminds himself 2 for his report and concludes the trial within the timeframe set down by him. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)