IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39726 of 2009 1. Raj Kumar Sao, Son of Late Jitu Sao, resident of Village-Poari, Police Station- Harnaut, District- Nalanda. 2. Dinesh Sao, Son of Late Bhagwan Sao, resident of Village- Karnauti, Police Station- Bahktiarpur, District-Patna. .......Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Ashok Singh, Son of Late Ram Gulam Singh @ Masudan Singh. 3. Mukul Kumar Singh, Son of Late Ram Gulam Singh @ Masudan Singh. 4. Abinash Singh, Son of Late Ram Gulam Singh @ Masudan Singh. All are residents of Village- Poari, Police Station-Harnaut, District- Nalanda.........................................................................Respondents. ----------- 2. 21.01.2010. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed by the P.W.1 and P.W.2 objecting to their cross-examination in Sessions Trial No. 344 of 2001. The court below has allowed the defence to cross-examine these two witnesses. An objection has been raised that the counsel did not appear to cross-examine the two witnesses, and as such, he should not be permitted to do so. It is within the powers of the court below to recall a witness, if he thinks it is in the interest of justice. The case is at the initial stage. Therefore, I do not think that the parties can object to their cross-examination and especially not the witnesses. I, therefore, direct the petitioners to appear in the court below when called upon by the court below for their cross- examination. If the petitioners do not appear in the court below for 2 their cross-examination, they would face contempt proceedings. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner no.1 resides outside the State, therefore, sufficient time should be given to him to appear for his cross-examination. The court may grant reasonable time to petitioner no. 1 for appearing in court. The application is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. U.K. (Sheema Ali Khan,J)