IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23983 of 2010 YOGENDRA SAO @ JOKAR SAO Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 21.7.2010. Heard. The facts of the case appear indicated in the order rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner for the first time in Cr.Misc.Petition No.48501 of 2007. The petitioner thereafter has renewed the prayer for bail thrice but with similar results. Last time the petitioner was directed to approach the lower court which was directed to point out to this court the full details as to why in spite of the petitioner being in custody since 30.12.2006, has not been handed out justice. What is found from the rejection order is that the court below has cited the same old reasons which are found often in such type of orders in ignorance of its powers so as to forcing the production of witness which could be the real cause behind the pendency of the trial. The learned trial Judge who is trying Sessions trial NO.2556 of 2008 has pointed out that summons, bailable warrant as well as non- bailable warrant were issued against the non- - 2 - official witnesses and a letter to A.S.P., Patna City was also issued but up-till now no witness has been produced for evidence. The learned A.P.P. also submitted that he is also making the endeavour to produce the witnesses in the court. It may be pointed out that the charges were framed on 12.8.2009, about a year ago, and the learned trial Judge or may be his predecessor could not get even a single witness produced before him and he was indulging in correspondence with the A.S.P. by writing a letter to him as if he could be a friend of his for production of the witnesses. Courts have to draw orders and not to write letters to the concerned police officers and for compliance of such orders the court can exercise its powers vested to it through a particular provision of the Code of Cr.P.C., i.e., Section 170(2)of the Code as well as the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Shailendra Kumar Vrs. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 270. The officer-in-charge of the police station is obliged to produce witnesses for proving the charges. Let the Senior Superintendent of Police, - 3 - Patna be ordered by this court to ensure that the witnesses who are named in the chargesheet of Sultanganj(Agamkuan) P.S.Case No.181 of 2005 be produced on a day to day basis before Additional Sessions Judge, Patna who is trying Sessions Trial No.2556 of 2008. The S.S.P., Patna shall obtain the name of the witnesses who are figuring in the chargesheet from the officer in the charge of the above police station and issue an official order to him to remain physically present on all dates fixed by the court for hearing of the witnesses. A compliance shall be reported to this court within fortnight of receipt of a copy of this order which has to be handed over for compliance. It is expected that the trial is concluded in nine months time, else the petitioner shall be free to approach this court for bail. Petition is disposed of with the above directions. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )