IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26257 of 2011 Mantu Dom @ Mantu Kumar, son of Late Panchanand Dom Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 3. 22.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Considering that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of having fired at the deceased, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail is rejected. On perusal of the explanation of the Trial Court as to why there was delay in framing of charge, it appears that the petitioner was not produced from custody despite orders of the Court. Now that the charge has been framed, the Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, IInd Danapur, Patna,) is directed to send a list of the witnesses fixing specific dates for production of the witnesses along with a copy of this order to the Superintendent of Police, Patna, and the Superintendent of Police, Patna, is directed to ensure production of the witnesses on day-to-day basis by the Trial Court so that there is no further delay in trial. The Trial Court is also reminded of Section 273 of the Cr. P.C. which enjoins recording of evidence of 2 witness in absence of accused, if his Pleader is present. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)