IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18636 of 2009 SHRAWAN YADAV Versus STATE OF BIAHR ----------- 2/ 31.07.2009 Heard. Regard being had to the fact that the petitioner being assailant of the deceased and further that the offence appears committed so as to act in a spirit of vengeance, for settling scores, the court is not inclined to direct release of the petitioner by allowing the present renewal prayer. The petition is dismissed. If it could be true, then the court is worried to know the petitioner being in custody for about a year, even without his case being committed to the court of Sessions. I direct the learned Sessions Judge, West Champaran to ensure that the case ( Bagaha P.S. No. 71 of 2002) be committed to the court of Sessions without further loss of time. Some times, the court awaits for the result of further investigation when the police, keeping the investigation pending in respect of other accused, submits charge sheet in respect of a few, who could be completing ninty days of custody in a particular case. This judicial behaviour is exhibited in utter violation of the provisions contained in Code of Criminal Procedure and the law laid down in the case of State of Maharastra Vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre and ors. (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 42. If this could be the reason for pendency of the committal - 2 - proceedings, then I direct A.C.J.M. Bagaha or any magistrate who could be seised with Bagaha P.S. Case no. 71 of 2002 to go through that particular judgment and pass a fresh order summoning all the accused persons against whom materials could be available in the case diary. The court below shall see that summons could be issued time and again but cognizance could be taken only once of the offence. This court believes that above noted case does not remain pending for committal proceeding. Anil/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)