IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3852 of 2010 Pankaj Kumar Yadav, Son of Late Bishnu Pd. Yadav @ Bishundeo Yadav, Resident of Mohalla-Urdu Bazar, Bhagalpur, P.S.-Tatarpur (Kotwali), District-Bhagalpur. Versus The State of Bihar ----------- 02 10.02.2010 The petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. but allegedly looted the mobile phone which recovered from his possession. Petitioner is an accused in Kotwali (Tilkamanjhi) P.S. Case No.479 of 2008 (G.R. No.2549 of 2008) instituted under Section 392/411 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner’s earlier bail application was rejected by this Court by order dated 19.05.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No.16149 of 2009 with an observation to expedite the trial. Petitioner has filed this application and presses his application in terms of Section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner states that on 15.05.2009 the Trial Court, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class framed charges against the petitioner and fixed 29.05.2009 as the date for commencing of recording evidence. It is now over six months but not a single prosecution witnesses has been produced much less examined. In that view of the matter, he submits that he is entitled to bail. In my view, these facts must be brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate, who would first require to pass order in accordance with the said provisions. It is, therefore, directed that petitioner should move the - 2 - Magistrate before whom the trial is pending, who is required to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Trivedi (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)