IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.10501 of 2011 Dinesh Yadav @ Lali Yadav son of Kedar Yadav Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 4/ 03.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was refused bail by order dated 24.08.2010 vide Cr. Misc. No.22922 of 2010 since there was allegation against him of having kidnapped the victim so that he could not depose in the earlier case. Prayer for bail has been renewed on that ground that four eye witnesses have been examined during trial but none of them have supported the case. On the other hand, counsel for the informant submits that the witnesses, who have deposed, have cast reasonable suspicion against the petitioner against whom there are at least twenty five cases pending. In view of such, I am not inclined to review the earlier order. Prayer for bail is once again rejected. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the informant and the witnesses are not appearing which is refuted by the informant. In case the trial court finds that prosecution witnesses are deliberately delaying the trail then the Trial Court shall take strict action against the prosecution and consider proceeding without examination of the witnesses. The Trial Court is also directed not to wait for the 2 accused persons for examination of the witnesses since section 273 Cr. P.C. clearly enjoins that evidence can be taken even in absence of the accused if the counsel is present. JA/- (Anjana Prakash,J.)