IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44033 of 2008 1. RAMANAND SINGH 2. Lakhni Devi @ Manmatiya Devi … Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioners: Shri Krishsna Mohan For the State: Shri Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. - - - - 2. 22.10.2008 Heard both the sides. In any view of the matter, specially in view of the fact that the husband has been granted anticipatory bail by another Bench of this Court, I am still not inclined to direct the release of the petitioners for the simple reason that it is admitted that the lady was in the house of her husband and she went missing according to the petitioners as well. The neighbours of the petitioners have stated that the lady was very much in the house and was not being seen from quite some days when the informant was in search of the lady. There is definite allegation against the husband that for not getting the desired dowry he married another lady. The trial is almost at the threshold of being concluded and I direct the court below to look to the provision of Section 170(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also the 2 decision of the Supreme Court in Shailendra Kumr Vs. The State of Bihar: A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 270 and act accordingly. The Cr.p.C. might have a provision making a duty of the prosecution to produce the witnesses, the courts, for that matter, should not shun their duties of getting the witnesses produced before them. The Court believes that the learned trial court acts as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above noted case and conclude the trial in further period of five months. If the trial is not concluded within the said period, the petitioners shall have the right to pray for their bail in the court below itself. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)