IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30109 of 2008 RAUSHAN KUMAR …. PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …. OPP. PARTY ----------- 5. 4.12.2008 Heard Sri Rana Pratap Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shi Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri Raj Kishor Prasad 1, Advocate for the informant and Sri Dasrath Mehta, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The earlier prayer of the petitioner was dismissed by Annexure -1, which is an order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28120 of 2008 by this court. The renewal prayer is both on merits as also on pendency of the trial and no progress being made in it. It is contended that the petitioner is in custody since 2.8.2005 without being anything done towards the disposal of the trial and handing out judgment to the petitioner. During the hearing of the present petition on 11.11.2008, it was pointed out that this court had transferred the trial to Munger, but the informant had filed a petition before F.T.C.I, Begusarai and that court withheld the record. I sought a report from the District & - 2 - Sessions Judge, Begusarai and that appears at Flag ‘A’, which indicates that the record has now been received by the District & Sessions Judge, Munger on 17.11.2008. While arguing on merits Sri Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner took me through some of the paragraphs of the case including those, which contains the confessions of one Dharmendra Kumar Yadav and co- accused Robin Singh to indicate that the petitioner or other accused could not be the assailant of the deceased. The further contention was that Juli Kumari, who was also injured allegedly on account of a shot fired by Robin Singh, while he was being attempted to be caught by Juli, has alleged that the father and two sons Robin Singh and this petitioner Raushan Kumar fired shots. Be that as it may, the common allegation in the statement of the informant and of Juli remains the same fact that Robin Singh and Raushan Kumar had also fired the fatal shots. Now that record has been received by the appropriate Judgeship for trial, the court could have an legitimate expectation of expediting the hearing. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Munger shall ensure, if - 3 - it has not been done, that the trial be made over to a competent Judge, who could take the hearing with ado and urgency and disposes of the case at the earliest point of time. The petition is dismissed. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)