IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52032 of 2008 JHHABU RAM … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri B.J.Ojha For the State: Shri Md. Kamran, APP ----------- 3. 22.12.2008 Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the counter version of the incident is pending before a Magistrate and charges have been framed in that case. The information takes care of the anxiety of this Court as indicated in its order dated 18.12.2008. The renewal prayer is on the ground that the petitioner being in custody since 10.9.2006 the trial appears going at a very slow space and out of ten witnesses four have been examined and six remained to be examined and those four who have been examined have not supported the charges. The further contention is that the allegation against the petitioner is of giving a lalthi blow and other two accused who were alleged to have given similar blows to the deceased have been 2 admitted to bail. As appears from the rejection order of this Court as also of the lower court in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2007 the blow given by the petitioner on the head of the deceased proved fatal. In that view this Court had held that the petitioner was the assailant of the deceased. As regards the trial, the learned trial Judge has indicated to have issued warrant of arrest non-bailable against the witnesses. A letter has also been forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Buxar, for production of the witnesses. I could not want to comment upon the procedure adopted by the learned trial Judge who is holding Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2007 but want to add that the right procedure could be issuing a notice to the Officer-in-charge of Rajpur Police Station attaching thereto the list of remaining witnesses including the I.O. and the Doctor for their production, besides, taking steps through the proper channel for the production of the Doctor and the I.O. in the case and the Officer-in-charge could be directed to 3 remain physically present with all the witnesses on the dates fixed by the court. The court could do it in the light of the direction of the Supreme Court in Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 270. I believe, the court could do it and conclude the trial at the earliest. As regards the prayer for bail, the prayer was earlier dismissed on merit and in that view, I am not inclined to direct the release of the petitioner on bail. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)