IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.511 of 2010 SHIV SHANKAR SINGH,S/O Late Ram Dayal Singh, resident of Village- Bhasepur, P.S. Bajpatti, District- Sitamarhi......Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR......................................Opposite Party. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. ---------- 2. 18.01.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No. 866 of 2005 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Sitamarhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be permitted to examine Suman Devi as a defence witness. The facts of this case according to the petitioner are that Suman Devi was earlier prosecution witness, however, she was not arrayed as a witness by the prosecution. An application was filed for allowing the petitioner to exhibit the evidence of Suman Devi in the present trial which was rejected by the court below. Again an application has been filed that defence may be permitted to examine Suman Devi as a defence witness. It appears that the prosecution has concluded the argument and applications are being filed, one after other making the same prayer in order to delay the trial. After considering the reasons given by the court below for 2 rejecting the application I find that there is no illegality in the order, and as such, this application is dismissed. U.K. (Sheema Ali Khan,J)