IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.21476 of 2008 HAZARI YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 24.6.2008 Heard on the renewal prayer and I do not find any reason to reconsider the prayer. Even the grievance of the petitioner that his trial is not taking off, appears not on account of the latches of the court but on account of the Public Prosecutor of the Sessions division who may not be appreciating as to how difficult it could be for a man like the petitioner to spend days and nights without trial being taken up. The court below has pinned its hope on the newly appointed Additional Public Prosecutor that he would ensure the framing of the charges on a particular date and production of witnesses before him for expeditious disposal of the case. The court may go through the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Shailendra Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 SC 270 and issue notice to the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station to remain present with the witnesses who are cited in the chargesheet for their evidence in court. This was the procedure indicated by the Apex Court and that - 2 - is also in consonance with the provisions of 170(2)Cr.P.C. Pinning its hope on the Additional Public Prosecutor might be justified when the prosecution has the duties of production of witnesses, but the court cannot shake itself off its statutory obligations. I believe that the court below does act in the light of the Apex Court decision in Shailendra Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar and concludes the trial in one and half years. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )