IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30522 of 2009 PRASAD YADAV, son of Jagdeo Yadav @ Bramdeo Yadav, resident of village Pipra, P.S. Gobindganj, District East Champaran Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 16.10.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused for offence u/s 364A of the Indian Penal Code in which the victim was one Akhileshwar Prasad, who had on his recovery made a statement involving the petitioner. The petitioner in fact is in custody since 25.7.2005 in connection with this case and when his prayer for bail was made in this case, this Court by an order dated 24.8.2009 had called for a report as to whether Akhileshwar Prasad has been examined in course of trial or not. The report of the court below dated 10.9.2009 would go to show that though three witnesses have been examined till date but Akhileshwar Prasad has not been examined and the court below claims to have only issued summons for appearance of the charge sheet witnesses including the victim Akhileshwar Prasad fixing the date for recording of evidence on 15.10.2009. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner says that he is not aware as to whether the witnesses were examined by the prosecution on 15.10.2009 but then he submits that as three witnesses were examined in the pending trial way back in the year 2006 the confinement of the petitioner in jail for the period over four years can be no longer justified. In the opinion of this Court the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner has some sense, inasmuch as every under trial prisoner has a right for an expeditious trial. It is really unfortunate for this Court to note that the trial court while submitting report at Flag ‘A’ dated 10.9.2009 to the query of this Court has really shown no concern even by way of acquainting much less explaining as to why the deposition of Akhileshwar Prasad was not completed in last three years. The whole intent of the order of this Court dated 24.8.2009 was to simply ascertain the reason for not examining Akhileshwar Prasad whose evidence will have a crucial bearing on the entire case, inasmuch as if he would name 3 the petitioner, the adverse inference leading even up to his conviction can be made but on the other hand if he does not name the petitioner probably the petitioner may claim a benefit of doubt. Considering all these aspects, this Court would call upon the trial court to be more serious in its effort in conducting the trial of such sensitive cases relating to kidnapping, abduction etc. and the trial court, therefore, is also directed to ensure that the trial of this case is completed expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and if the witnesses do not appear the trial court should not be shy in taking recourse to coercive mode in the prescribed manner. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of by rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner for the present. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/