IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1331 of 2010 SUNIL KUMAR RAM Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 13.5.2010. Heard. Considering the allegation that the petitioner is the assailant of the deceased having fired three shots to kill the father of the informant, the court is not inclined to direct the release of the above named petitioner on bail. Petition is dismissed. However, the court is distressed to find that in spite of the case being registered in 2003, it is still lying at the commitment stage, the reason for the same being that one of the accused, namely, Prahalad Kumar being absent the court, the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Danapur is not getting him before him to committing the case to the court of Sessions. It may be pointed out that the commitment is of the case and not of the accused as was the previous provision under the Code of 1898. There is a standing instruction of this court that in a situation of the present type, the court should not wait for the appearance of an absconding - 2 - accused and should commit the case in its entirety to the court of Sessions which shall have to issue the same processes over and again for seeking appearance of the particular absconding accused before it. I direct the Magistrate to immediately commit the case to the court of Sessions which shall be listed by the learned Sessions Judge before a Fast Track Court having a Presiding Officer of the longest future stay in Patna so that the trial is held with expectation. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )