IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36775 of 2008 MANAN CHOUDHARY Versus STAET OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 7.1.2009 Heard Sri Gajendra Nath Ojha, Advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The allegation is that the petitioner took away the ten year old son of the informant and further that he promised to bring back the boy. The last allegation is that the petitioner was made a telephonic call to the informant asking him to pay Rs.3,00000/- to Sushil Chaudhary else his son won’t be returned. The petitioner is in custody since 1.2.2006. The boy was recovered inside a house at village Dhanchua. The recovery was made consequent upon the information given by the petitioner in his confessional statement to the police as may appear from the recorded confessional statement in paragraph 19 of the case diary. The contention is that the petitioner is in custody since 1.2.2006 and the trial has not yet been concluded. A report appears called for from the learned trial Judge and it has been reported that only two witnesses including the - 2 - I.O. of the case were to be examined in the case as 11 witnesses have already been examined by the learned trial Judge. The report was dated 15.11.2008 and the report could expect that some steps must have been taken for procuring the attendance of the witnesses specially for the investigating officer of the case. The learned trial Judge should make all endeavours to conclude the trial by the end of second quarter of 2009. The petition is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Superintendent of Police, Buxar who is directed to ensure that the I.O. of Simari P.S.Case No.23 of 2006 is produced before F.T.C.II, Buxar in Sessions trial no.243 of 2006. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )