IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46349 of 2008 TASLIM KHAN …. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …. OPP. PARTY ----------- 2. 28.11.2008 Heard Sri Aminuddin Ahmad Khan, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri D. Mehta, APP for the State. The renewal prayer is made on the ground that the court directed the examination of Baban Paswan and thereafter the prayer for bail could be considered. The contention is that in spite of repeated petitions being filed for the examination of said Baban Paswan, who is also the informant of the case. He is not turning up in spite of the court’s effort for his evidence. In support of the contention, the order dated 2.8.2008 has been annexed as Annexure – 9/A, which indicates that there was no witness in attendance on that particular date and a petition had been filed by the defence to produce the informant in the case, which was rejoined by the prosecution that he could be produced on the next date. The court appears issued non- bailable warrant of arrest against all the witnesses and fixed the hearing to 5.8.2008 and on that date the said Baban Paswan did not appear and instead of producing Baban - 2 - Paswan the prosecution has produced one Sitaram Paswan, who was examined, cross-examined and discharged in the case as P.W. 5. The court does not appear passing any order on the production or non-production of Babab Paswan and that appears continuing till 24.10.2008. On which date also there was specific order passed by the court to procure the attendance of the informant, i.e., Baban Paswan for his evidence. Thus, the court is convinced that the informant Baban Paswan is not turning up with some clear motives. The Court directs Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. V, Bhojpur at Ara to issue a notice to the Officer-in- Charge of Shahpur Police Station directing him to produce the said Baban Paswan on a date, which could be within 15 days of issuance of the notice before him and if the informant is not produced on that particular date, then the court is directed to close the evidence and proceed in the matter in accordance with law. As regards the prayer for bail of the petitioner, considering that a Bench of this court has earlier dismissed twice, it is outside the propriety to reconsider it. The petition is dismissed. - 3 - Let this order be communicated through Fax at the cost of the petitioner. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)