IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15384 of 2009 BRAMDEO YADAV @ BRAHAMDEO YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 14.10.2009 Heard. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. of a case under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Considering this circumstance, the earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was dismissed by me, as may appear from Annexure- 1. A report was sought for from the court below about the approximate time it may take in conclusion of the trial and it is a bit amusing that the court has fixed time on its own action, rather, it is dependent upon some actions and assistance which it expects from the prosecution. This Court wants to remind the court below that the basic duty to produce the witnesses might be of the prosecutor but that does not absolve the trial Judge from indulging himself in the trial process and to secure the production of 2 witnesses. This could be explicit from the decision of the Supreme Court in Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 270. I believe, the learned trial Judge reads that judgment and acts accordingly and concludes the trial within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order, else, the court below shall itself release the petitioner on bail on his furnishing a bond to its own satisfaction in Sessions Trial No. 125 of 2009. The petition is dismissed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)