IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37440 of 2008 UJARAN RAI @ VIJAY YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 24.9.2008 Heard. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and specially learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court requires to correct its earlier order that the case is in respect of two deaths, the father and a son, it is not of two sons. The earlier finding in that behalf appears erroneous. As regards merits of the case, there does not appear any fresh ground or any compelling reasonable ground for reconsidering the prayer and, as such, the petition is dismissed. However, there is one element which worries me and i.e. that inspite of being in custody since 1.7.2006, it is contended that the learned Trial Judge has not even framed the charges. I want to point out to the learned Trial Judge that merely on the basis of the statement in an F.I.R., one does not put a person in the status of convict. He is supposed to be innocent till convicted and all fora of appeal are exhausted with confirmation of conviction, if any. Recently the Supreme Court has taken a view after referring to the Charter of Human Rights that treating a person accused for an offence as innocent is his human right. The situation in the present case is that the accused is in custody since 1.7.2006, and charge has not been framed. One could simply say that it is an abuse of the human right of the accused. I could, as such, point out to the court below to act with urgency as regards - 2 - framing of charge and act as per direction of the Supreme Court as reported in AIR 2002 SC 270 (Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.) and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. Unnecessary adjournments must not be granted and if possible, hearing should be held on day to day basis. sudip ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )