IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13129 of 2009 MANIBHUSHAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 13.5.2009 It is obvious from the order dated 20.2.2009 that the whole game of the petitioner is to delay the trial of the case where more than ten witnesses have been examined and the court has categorically recorded that the cross-examination has also been done on behalf of the defence, but very cleverly a question is being raised that there was no engagement of any counsel on behalf of the petitioner and this creates a serious prejudice to him. This Court is not convinced with the stand taken by the petitioner in relation to plea that he has not actually engaged any lawyer since the trial court has stated the position in many words in its order. The court of Additional District Judge has rightly rejected the petition of the petitioner and no interference with the impugned order is required. This application is dismissed. SKBOSE (Ajay Kumar Tripathi)