IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50196 of 2008 MANTU SHARMA@M ANTU SINGH … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri Sanjay Kr. @ Manu For the State:Shri DAshrath Mehta,APP ----------- 3. 12.1.2009 Heard. The case is under Sections 364(A),365,120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and relates to the abduction and confinement of one Praveen Kumar. The victim was taken to Motihari to the house of the petitioner on the pretext of meeting the petitioner where he was served with sweetmeat. The victim took the sweetmeat. The petitioner, co-accused Vickey and the victim also took tea but it was only the victim who lost his consciousness and was confined at various places. He was made to tell his family members to accept the demand of his captors. Considering that the sweetmeat, which was the real cause of unconsciousness of the victim, was served by the petitioner, I am not inclined to direct his release on bail. 2 The petition is dismissed. The Court is concerned about the lethargic approach of the trial Judge towards the confinement of a man without trial. The petitioner is in custody since 6.8.2005 and the lethargy is writ large in the very order passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari. The learned Judge has written that the original case diary was with the records of Sessions Trial No. 468 of 2008 which was in respect of another accused and the same had been called for by him, and as such, the charges could not be framed. The Judge appears not having the little knowledge of the elementary provision of the Cr.P.C. The case is committed and the case has to be tried even if the case is separated for any reason. It was the Sessions Judge who could have tagged the separated trial into one and sent it to one court for trial. If the Additional Sessions Judge was ignorant about the Cr.P.C. then he was simply depicting himself in the lack of knowledge and the practical approach to a trial. It was the Additional Sessions Judge that on being 3 informed about the situation he could have written to the Sessions Judge for either transferring the case to his Court or for sending the same to the other court for trial together. This Court could not run the lower courts. It could be the duty of the Judges of lower courts who are ordained to do it. The situation is worsening day by day in the lower courts. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Sessions Judge for doing the needful on consolidation of the two trials arising out of one trial. Besides, the trial Judge who could be receiving both the files shall have to ensure that the charges are framed and the trial is concluded with ado and expedition within one year to be counted from the date of consolidation of the two separated records. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)