IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16325 of 2010 RANJAY SINGH @ RANJAY KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 7.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The first ground for bail is a reiteration of the earlier grounds well considered and rejected by the order dated 17.9.2009, that other co-accused with primary roles have already been granted bail. The second submission is that he remains in custody on account of non-appearance of some of the other co-accused granted bail and his non-production from custody. Those not co-operating in the trial should be visited with cancellation of bail failing which the petitioner should be enlarged on bail. He cannot be singled out for continued custody. The prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by a reasoned order inclusive of the question of the period of custody as not relevant in the nature of the allegations. There is no occasion for this Court to reconsider the prayer for bail on merits. If an accused is on bail and is not appearing in trial, it is for the prosecution to take appropriate steps. If the petitioner files any application on that ground for separation of his 2 trial, it shall be the discretion of the trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law. The petitioner is stated to be in custody in the jail at Gaya. The Superintendent of Police, Gaya is directed to ensure that the Jail Superintendent without fail produces the petitioner for trial on the first appointed date fixed therein after the receipt and/or presentation of a copy of the present order before the Superintendent of Police, Gaya. This Court directs that both the Superintendent of Police, Gaya and the Jail Superintendent shall be answerable for non-compliance of the order of this Court in the event that the petitioner makes a grievance that despite direction they did not produce him. Let the trial be expedited. The application is rejected. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)