IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.11310 of 2009 1. Manoj Kumar Rai, Son of Late Ram Darshan Rai, resident of Village- Thora, P.S.-Buxar(M), District-Buxar. 2. Pappu Giri, Son of Satyanarayan Giri, resident of Village-Basauli, P.S. Udwant Nagar, District-Bhojpur………………….Petitioners. -Versus- The State of Bihar…………………… …………..Opposite Party. ----------- 2. 14.5.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. By virtue of the impugned order dated 21.1.2009, the trial court has allowed an application under Section 311 of Cr. P. C. on behalf of the prosecution and summoned five witnesses for their evidence in the case. Since it has come during the course of trial that they were also eye witnesses to the occurrence, so their examination in the case is important. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is only ploy of the prosecution to delay the trial. Petitioners are in custody since 11.5.2008. It is the submission that as to what point or issue these witnesses have been summoned is not clear. This Court has gone through the impugned order. It is evident from the order itself that these witnesses were also eye witnesses to the occurrence. In the prosecution case also there is evidence and material against the petitioners, so this evidence is necessary. In the circumstances, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out and the same can not be interfered with. There is no infirmity in the order. As such, the trial court is advised to - 2 - summon them at the earliest. It is made clear, however, that the trial court should not extend dates for recording the deposition of the eye witnesses for months or years together only on this ground. This application is dismissed with the above observation. U.K. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J)