IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50088 of 2008 DR.MAHENDRA PRASAD Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU.C.B.I. ----------- 2. 19.1.2009 Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The violation of conditions of bail set down by the Apex Court, i.e., remaining absent on a particular date without intimating the court or the Superintendent, C.B.I. in which case the petitioner could be allowed to be represented by a counsel, resulted in the cancellation of the bond of the petitioner and ultimate refusal for being admitted to bail again by the Additional Special Judge, C.B.I.(AHD), Patna in Special Case No.64 of 1996. The contention is that the petitioner under a misconception of the date being other than that on which the - 2 - bond was cancelled, could not appear before the court below. The undertaking is that the petitioner shall remain physically present on all dates and abide by the conditions imposed by the Apex Court while disposing of S.L.A.(Criminal)No.924 of 2004. Let the above named petitioner be released from custody on furnishing bond in terms and on conditions of the order of the Apex Court as regards granting bail to the petitioner in the above noted S.L.P. This court wants to remind the learned Special Judge who is hearing Special Case No.64 of 1996 that its being live to the absence of the accused from custody if it could consider that the condition could be meaningful only when the trial is expedited. It is informed that the court has not even been able to frame the charges against the accused - 3 - persons. The court could have at least enquired from itself as to why it has not succeeded in performing its duty as per the aspirations of law and procedure and above all the general public whose interest litigation could result in investigation of cases and prosecution of many persons. If the prosecutor is not ready the court could look to Section 309 Cr.P.C and saddle the prosecution with appropriate cost of adjournment to be realized either by the Special P.P. or the C.B.I. The court requires the compliance of this part of order on imposition of proper cost on the prosecution for seeking unnecessary adjournment. Things have to happen accordingly. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )