IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44529 of 2008 SIYAWAR SARAN SINGH @ SIYAWAR SINGH, son of Late Kesri Kishore Saran Singh, resident of Mathura Pd. Sinha Road, P.S. Kadam Kuan, Patna…………………………………………………………….Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Chhota Lal Prasad, S/O Sadhu Raut, Village- Mathuria, P.S. Muradpur, District- Nalanda, at present, Nawal Kishore Road, Kadam Kuan, Patna. ---Opposite Parties. ----------- 4. 13.04.2009. Vide order dated 6.11.2004, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 494 of 1995 which arose out of Kadamkuan P.S. Case No. 701 of 1989 the bail bond of the petitioner has been cancelled and non bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against him because on 6.11.2004 no pairvi was made on behalf of the present petitioner. Submission of the learned senior counsel is that it is a case of 1989 and the petitioner has been vigilant and has been co-operating in the trial for many years but out of sheer over sight, it seems that the necessary pairvi could not be made on 6.11.2004 which led to passing of the impugned order. The petitioner also points out from the subsequent orders that pairvi has been made on his behalf even uptill 27.02.2008 which has been rejected by the court below in view of the order dated 6.11.2004 and the petitioner learnt about the present situation and filed the present application. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that looking at the prolonged trial which is going on in the matter which started in the year 1989, the situation in question arose which led to passing of the order but the conduct of the petitioner was not - 2 - intentional and he has assured the court that he is willing to present himself or through his counsel on each and every dates so that the trial in question be completed at the earliest. In the totality of the facts and situation, the order dated 6.11.2004 is quashed with a direction upon the petitioner to be vigilant and diligent to either appear in person before the trial court or by a duly authorized counsel or such direction which the court below may give from time to time. It is also hoped and expected that the trial court will see that the trial of the matter is concluded at the earliest so that the petitioner’s right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not violated. The petition is allowed and the order dated 6.11.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 494 of 1995 is quashed. U.K. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J)