IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37688 of 2008 SUDHIR HATHI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5 28.01.2009 Heard Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned counsel for petitioner and counsel for the opposite party. Reference may be made to the earlier order of this Court dated 19.11.2008. Pursuant thereto a report has been submitted by the trial Court which is at flag-X. From the tenor of the report it would appear that even though 16 witnesses were examined by the prosecution till the date of submission of the report, the trial Court some how is in a difficult situation to proceed further in view of pendency of an application filed before this Court by accused persons being Cr. Misc. No. 42663 of 2008. Such explanation of the Court below does not seem to be appropriate much less justifiable. Only because an application is filed before the superior Court and a certificate is granted of such filing, the Court below is not expected to keep on waiting for the result of such case. If the accused persons had failed to produce any stay order, the Court below ought to have proceeded further by completing the trial. Counsel for the informant-opposite party however, has produced an order sheet dated 6.1.2009 which would go to show that the - 2 - evidence of the prosecution has been closed and that now it is for the defence to complete their evidence. This Court, keeping in view the earlier direction of the Apex Court as also a similar order of this Court, would direct the Court below to now take up the trial and conclude the same on day to day basis. Whatever defence witnesses have to be examined by the accused persons, they must be adduced continuously on day to day basis and thereafter the argument must proceed so that the judgment is delivered within a period of three months from date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application for bail stands rejected. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)