IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38865 of 2008 RAMJEE PRASAD SHARMA @ RAMJEE SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 10.9.2008 Heard. The renewal order is on the ground that in spite of being in custody since 26.3.2007 the petitioner could get the charges framed against him on 23.3.2008 and some five dates succeeding thereafter no witness has been examined in the case. In support of the above contention, the copy of the orders passed by the court below (F.T.C.V, Jehanabad)has been produced before me and on perusal of the same I find that the record was received by the F.T.C.V on 10.6.2007 and almost all the dates either of the two accused remained not available either on account of his non-production from custody or the accused being represented through an Advocate under Section 317 Cr.P.C. Charges could not be read over and explained unless accused remains present. Thus, I do not find the learned Judge showing any sense of lethargic or rustiness in framing the charges. But he does appear not pulling much of the strings attached to his fingers so as to getting produced witnesses so as to disposing of the case as expeditiously as possible. Petition is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )