IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28249 of 2009 DWESH SINGH @ DHANDHAN SINGH @ DEVESH SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 9.12.2009 Heard. The report submitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Aurangabad appears at flag-A through which the learned Judge has pointed out that one of the accused, namely, Bhola Yadav was not produced from custody inasmuch as he was there on account of being accused in another case. The said accused Bhola Yadav was on bail in the present case. As regards the third accused Kamlesh Singh he appears still absconding and the processes of the court are not being heeded to by the police who are the executing agencies. The court would have felt happy had the learned Judge pointed out as to what steps he initiated against the jail authority for not producing before him the accused Bhola Yadav. Similarly, it would have been a heartening information, had the learned Judge pointed out in his report about the steps taken by him to force the police to execute the processes or to submit a proper report. I direct the court below to examine the - 2 - provisions of law and act accordingly if the accused Bhola Yadav is not produced before the court below within 15 days from the receipt/production of the copy of the present order. Likewise, the learned Judge shall ensure that a proper response is given by the police to the processes issued by him against absconding accused Kamlesh Singh and in case of the court being satisfied his trial is separated and the evidence under Section 299 Cr.P.C. is simultaneously recorded against him while proceeding with the trial of other accused persons. This court had no business to point out these things to a lower court because these are ordinarily procedures which a new entrant in the judicial service is acquainted with. But, unfortunately officers on the superior side of the judiciary appears missing the fundamentals of law and not identifying their own duties forcing this court to indicate as to what course they should adopt to overcome situations as pointed out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. Having considered the above facts and - 3 - the merit of the prayer earlier made was considered by me in Cr.Misc.Petition No.8493 of 2008 the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently attempted to introduce some elements of improbability in the fact situation of the case and thereby to submit that it might be a case of false implication. The probabilities and improbabilities could only be considered by the trial court when it had recorded the evidence which duty is not caste upon me. On the above consideration and material upon which I had based the earlier order, the prayer is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )