IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47233 of 2008 LATAN RAJWANSHI @ KISHUN RAJBANSHI ….. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ….. OPP. PARTY ----------- 2. 3.12.2008 Heard Sri Satya Ranjan Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri D. Mehta, APP for the State. The learned Judge appears did not show the conduct of an Advocate, which definitely was unprofessional and somewhere near serious professional misconduct. But, this court is more concerned than the trial Judge, that a Judge of his class could have been hurt in his sentiment and could not, as such, identify his own judicial duties. If an advocate was acting on the instruction of a person other than the accused, so as to withdrawing from the case by not defending the person, whose power he was holding, was not is a duty of the learned Judge to appoint an Advocate from the Legal Aid Panel. The next thing which has pained me is that if the man, who had engaged the Advocate, had not instructed him to withdraw from the case and not to defend, then others instructions could not have been of any effect and as such the trial Judge ought not to have cancelled the bond of the petitioner. The petitioner - 2 - shall be released forthwith allowing him to remain on the same bond, which was he was earlier furnished assuming that the same had not cancelled. The order shall be communicated by Fax to F.T.C. V, Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Sessions trial No. 380 of 1998 at the cost of the petitioner. The petition is disposed of in the above light. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)