IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26008 of 2009 UPENDRA YADAV, son of Shiv Nandan Yadav, resident of village Mahua, P.S. Nirmali, District Supaul Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 7.10.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. Though it is true that the petitioner is facing allegation which would make him the main assailant and that too of killing of his own wife but then they still remain to be at best an allegation. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by an order dated 23.5.2009 by the trial court by indicating that one witness had already been examined and that for securing presence of remaining witnesses bailable warrant of arrest has already been issued. Somehow the same position remains even after a period of four months when the trial court in view of the order of this Court dated 1.9.2009 has submitted its report, inasmuch as not even a single witness has been examined after the examination of the last witness, who being a doctor, an official witness, was examined in the month of November, 2008 i.e. 14.11.2008. 2 In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Superintendent of Police, Madhubani and the concerned Officer In-charge of the Police Station to ensure that whatever witnesses have to be examined by the prosecution must be produced within a period of four months as is the time sought even by the trial court. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforementioned period of six months, the petitioner will have the liberty to initially move the trial court which would be under obligation to record reasons for not concluding the trial and thereafter the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. With the aforementioned observations, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/