IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40024 of 2010 MAHTAB AHMAD KHAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5/ 11.5.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was earlier granted bail by this Court by order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16446 of 2007. However, that order in favour of the present petitioner was challenged before the Apex Court in Cr. Appeal No. 1684 of 2009 arising out of SLP (Cri) No. 8159 of 2007 and the Supreme Court cancelled the order of bail and, as a result of which, the petitioner is languishing in prison. While cancelling the order of bail in favour of the petitioner, the Apex Court directed ‘to take steps for apprehension of the respondent and proceed with the trial which may be expedited’. On account of some submissions and supporting material in that behalf, this Court had passed an order on 14.3.2011 seeking explanation from the Presiding judge, who was trying Sessions Trial No. 358 of 2007. That explanation appears at Flag – B. The contending side submits that the lady informant, who was not being examined on account of the obstruction caused in her examination by Public Prosecutor, has now been examined. The learned judge who had submitted his explanation, has, in few words, stated many things as regards his honesty, integrity and unintentionally doing wrong. While passing the order on 14.2.2011, this Court was 2 never doubting the integrity of the judge as it could not doubt in absence of any evidence in that behalf -- it was simply considering the evidence produced before it pointing out that it was more the wishes of Public Prosecutor, which was being fulfilled than the direction of section 231 Cr.P.C. that the learned judge was not examining the lady informant. Judges are subordinate to law and if they are required to do a particular thing in a particular manner, then they have to comply with that part of provision or, else give sufficiently strong reasons for not complying with that part of provision, which could be seldom available to any judge in a criminal proceeding. The court found it more disturbing in the light of the order of the Apex Court, which had cancelled the order of bail in favour of the petitioner and which had simultaneously directed the expeditious trial, which was being thwarted by unlawful obstruction created by the Public Prosecutor and the Presiding judge was simply a mute spectator, not identifying his own duties under law. It was not required that this Court could have pointed out these facts by noting them in this order but, the language of the learned judge submitting the explanation has prompted this Court to point out these things to him that by being honest or by maintaining integrity, judge does not do any judicial service. It is least expected from him. What is expected from him is to show the ability to handle the pressure situation and carry out judicial work with élan. That appears lacking in him. 3 Let a copy of this order be communicated to 2nd Additional Sessions judge, Vaishali at Hajipur. As regards prayer of the petitioner for bail, considering that only two witnesses are to be examined, this Court is not inclined to direct release of the petitioner on bail, more so, when his bond had been cancelled at the direction of the Supreme Court. However, this Court fixes a time frame of two months for concluding the trial. Learned counsel for the informant undertakes before me that remaining two witnesses would be produced within seven days and examined, whereafter the court below shall proceed to record the defence evidence, if tendered, after recording the statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. and shall conclude the trial by delivering the judgment by the end of two months to be counted from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petition stands disposed of with the aforementioned direction/observation. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)