IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.14279 of 2008 BHARAT MANJHI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ******** 2 07.05.2008 It is one of those unfortunate cases which really comments upon the present judicial system. The petitioner is an accused in a case lodged under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. He continues to be in custody since 28.06.2002 i.e. almost for a period of six years. From the order refusing bail, it transpires that though the trial in the sessions case upon framing of charge has commenced somewhere in 2004-05 and five witnesses were examined till 19.11.2005, there is no progress in the said criminal case in the next two and a half years. It is stated in the order that seven witnesses are yet to be examined. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not envisage such a lethargic trial. Once a case is taken up, the Public Prosecutor has to gear up all his resources to lead his evidence intendum within a reasonable period of time. There is nothing in the order rejecting bail as to why the trial has not progressed after examination of five witnesses, last one of which was examined on 19.11.2005. Normally, in such cases when the accused moves before the Court for bail on the ground that he has remained in 2 custody in course of trial and the trial is not commencing, the Trial Court is expected to give reasons for the delay in trial and steps taken by it to conclude the trial expeditiously. There may be cases where the Trial Court has to give sufficient opportunity to the prosecution to lead its evidence but that again can not be an endless process. The Trial Court is accordingly directed to proceed in the sessions case on day-to-day basis and ensure that the trial is concluded within a period of one year from today. If any witness whether doctor or the Investigating Officer or any other witness is avoiding appearance, the Trial Court will take all possible coercive steps for securing their presence but the trial must be completed within a period of one year. In the event, the trial is not concluded within the aforementioned period, the petitioner will first move the Trial Court seeking bail and the Trial Court will be under obligation to give reasons for not concluding the trial of the petitioner. The petitioner may thereafter move for bail before this Court. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the petitioner is the main assailant who has remained in custody for almost six years and the trial upon its commencement is in the midway as such this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly the prayer for bail on behalf of the petitioner 3 Bharat Manjhi in the light of aforementioned directions is hereby rejected for the present. Anand (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)