IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.50371 of 2008 MOZAIL KHAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 04.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and perused the report of the trial court dated 13.02.2009. From the said report, it appears that this petitioner absconded on the date fixed for judgment i.e. 08.09.2008 and as a result, his trial was separated. On the next date, other accused persons intimated the trial court that they intended to file a transfer petition before the High Court and as a result, the judgment was not delivered. Transfer petition appears to have been filed first before the Sessions Court which was dismissed on 11.12.2008. In the meantime, petitioner was arrested and produced on 10.11.2008 and the trial was amalgamated thereafter. On account of pendency of a transfer application before the High Court, the Sessions Court is not proceeding to deliver the judgment which was supposed to be delivered on 08.09.2008. Having considered all the facts and circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner is rejected for the present. Unless the co- accused persons are able to produce an order of this Court staying delivery of judgment, the trial court should proceed with the trial and deliver the judgment without delay. In case the trial is not concluded within three months from today then the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer. - 2 - Let a copy of this order be communicated through Fax to the concerned court (Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-IV, Kaimur at Bhabua) in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2004 arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2003. Uday/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)