IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39091 of 2010 ALOK KUMAR @ ALOK RAI . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . with Cr.Misc. No.43632 of 2010 SANTOSH RAI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 4. 05.01.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. While the prayer for bail in Cr. Misc. No. 39091 of 2010 has been rejected twice earlier that in Cr. Misc. No. 43632 of 2010 has been rejected once earlier. In this renewed prayer for bail on their behalf for reasons of the materials noticed at paragraph 1 of page 2 of the common order dated 14.9.2009 this Court is not persuaded to reconsider the prayer for bail on the ground that some of the accused who stood trial have been acquitted. In view of the report from the trial Court at flag ‘X’ with regard to Cr. Misc. No. 23222 of 2010 preferred by the informant, the office has reported that no orders have been passed therein and the application is pending. From the report at flag ‘X’ it appears that the Cr. Misc. No. 23222 of 2010 has been preferred by the informant for recording the deposition of the Investigating Officer. In limited exercise of power under Sections 439 & 440 Cr.P.C. this Court does not have the jurisdiction to make any observation on the opinion expressed in the report at flag ‘X’ to await the disposal of Cr. Misc. No. 23222 of 2010 as that may amount to interference in judicial proceeding pending before a court of competent jurisdiction. Had the issue been before this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the matter may have been entirely different. From the report at flag ‘X’ it also appears that the trial of the petitioner is on the verge of conclusion and is only held up because of pendency of Cr. Misc. No. 23222 of 2010. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are not parties in the aforesaid Cr. Misc. application. If so advised, the petitioners may move for an early disposal of Cr. Misc. No. 23222 of 2010 since it appears that the disposal of the trial is held up on that ground as a consequence of which the petitioners continue to remain in custody without final adjudication on the allegations against them. These applications are dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)