IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40845 of 2008 RATNESH KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 12.01.2009 Heard Sri Manish Kumar 3, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Dasrath Mehta, APP for the State. The earlier prayer of the petitioner was dismissed by Annexure – 1. The allegation is that the petitioner dealt a cricket bat blow on the head of the son of the informant, who died on that account. An attempt was made to impress upon me that it could be an unintentional and accidental act by submitting that in order to separate two fighting animals like cow and ox, the petitioner threw his cricket bat targeting them which accidentally hit the deceased and killed him. But after being taken through a couple paragraphs or so, what I find is that the real act could be decided only after the trial Judge takes the evidence and considers it in its true perspective. In that light, the petition is dismissed. The report of the learned Sessions Judge, Chapra indicates that the petitioner’s trial is not taking place on account of his non-production by the Jail Superintendent. - 2 - The court believes that the petitioner is now duly and auxiliary produced before the court and his trial is expedited. The learned Judge should not write a letter to an Officer like the Jail Superintendent of any one of the Executive, rather he should draw an order issuing a direction in such cases of producing an accused and in case of non-compliance should properly deal with the matter within the framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)