IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8636 of 2010 DR.BRAJ BHUSHAN PRASAD, SON OF LATE BANARSI BHAGAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PURAN, CHHAPRA, P.S. CHAKIA, DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN. ------ PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUDHA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SURESH GIRI @ ALOK GIRI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BALAMISHRSIYA, P.S. KALYANPUR, DISTT. EAST CHAMPARAN ------- OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 11.10.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioner confines his prayer with respect to rejection of the order dated 30.9.2009 by which examining eight witnesses on behalf of the petitioner has been refused. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the trial court by which he has refused to consider examination of eight witnesses mentioned in the petition filed on 30.10.2009. The petitioner submits that in fact, even if the prosecution had given up of those witnesses they could have been examined as court witnesses if their evidence was thought to be necessary for ends of justice. Since the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner is also not clear that these witnesses should have been summoned as court witnesses, it appears that the order of the trial court was passed on misconception that the petitioner sought examination of those witnesses as defence witnesses and, therefore, the stage for such had not arrived. In view of submission now made before this Court, 2 the matter is remanded to the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 822 of 2008 to consider whether examination of those witnesses is essential for the just decision of the case. With these observations, the application is disposed of. This order evidently has been passed on the submission that there has been no progress in the trial and it is still continuing. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)