ORDER This application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 17.8.90 and 21.9.90 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari. 2. In appears that on 10.7.90 dasti warrant was given to the A. P.P. to bring the I. O. Sri J. Jha for his examination in the Sessions Trial and 17.8.90 was the date fixed for that purpose. 3. From the perusal of the order dated 17.8.90 it appears that the learned A.P.P. submitted that 17.8.90 was the date fixed for examination of Sri J. Jha but inspite of all efforts taken by Court, he did not turn up and prayed the prosecution case may be closed. On such submission and prayer, the court closed the prosecution case and adjourned the case to 25.8.90 for examination of toe accused under section 313 of toe Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. On 25. 8. 90, the accused was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was, adjourned to 21.9.90 argument for defence and further argument. 5. On 21.9.90. a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to examine Sri J. Jha as Court witness, the I O. of the case, who was a very material witness in the case, but that application was rejected by the order dated 21. 9. 90 on the ground that summons for the attendance of the witness was issued through S. P. concerned and lastly warrant of arrest was issued against the witness but he did not appear and, therefore, the prosecution case was lastly closed on the petition filed by the concerned A.P.P. for State. 6. It was vehemently argued that since the aforesaid I. O. is a material witness in the case and he is equally material for unfolding the story, therefore, court ought to have examined him as a court witness even if the prosecution prayed for closure of the prosecution case. 7. From the impugned order dated 21. 9. 6. It was vehemently argued that since the aforesaid I. O. is a material witness in the case and he is equally material for unfolding the story, therefore, court ought to have examined him as a court witness even if the prosecution prayed for closure of the prosecution case. 7. From the impugned order dated 21. 9. 90 it appears that the case was adjourned for two years for procuring the attendance of the witnesses in the court and ultimately it was dosed at the request of the A.P.P. but it is the bounden duty of the court to examine any witness even as court witness if his evidence appears to the court to be essential to do just decision of the case, This fact is not in dispute that I.O., the then Officer Incharge of Paharpur investigated the case and record the statement of the witnesses and collected materials at the spot, therefore, in that view of the matter, no doubt he is a material witness in this case. It was also submitted that the prosecution has deliberately-filed the application to close the case but since it is question of fact, it cannot be said definitely whether the prosecution had deliberately filed the application or not but the fact remains that the prosecution case was closed on the prayer of the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. 8. It is well settled that where an accused person has filed a petition and prayed for examination of any person either as prosecution witness or as court witness before the close of the trial on the grounds that they are deliberately being withheld by the prosecution, it is the bounden duty of the court to get such person examined as a court witness so, that the correct picture of the prosecution case should be brought before the Court in order to arrive at a just decision in the case. 9. The learned counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of Anirudh Prasad Singh & Ors. Versus The State of Bihar (1974 B.B.C.J. 178) where it has been held that: "It is the bounden duty of the prosecutor, the graver the offence the heavier the duty, to bring before the court all such witnesses who may have witnessed the incident to unfold the whole story. Versus The State of Bihar (1974 B.B.C.J. 178) where it has been held that: "It is the bounden duty of the prosecutor, the graver the offence the heavier the duty, to bring before the court all such witnesses who may have witnessed the incident to unfold the whole story. It is not open to the prosecution to deliberately suppress or hold back from the court any material witness merely on the ground that the story, which he may, unfold may not be quite favourable to the prosecution and the discretion is solely conferred under section 540 of the Code of the trying Court to see as to whether there has been any such deliberate suppression or holding back of witnesses or not" In the aforesaid decision, his lordship has taken note of the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Darya Singh and Others Versus State of Punjab (A.I.R. 1965 Supreme Court 328) where the Supreme Court has observed that it is well settled that in a murder case, it is primarily for the prosecutor to decide which witnesses ho should examine in order to unfold his story. The prosecutor must Act, fairly and honestly and. most never adopt the device of keeping back from the court eye-witnesses only because their evidence is likely to go against the prosecution case. The duty of the prosecutor IS to assist the Court in reaching a proper conclusion in regard to the case which is brought before it for trial. In the instant case a number of murders took place and the I.O. had not been produced by the prosecutor for the best reason known to the A.P.P. when primary investigation was made by him in the case and material evidence were collected. In my opinion, he is a most important material witness, who must be examined by the court, if not as P. W., certainly as court witness. Moreover he is the public servant and is still in service. The court can procure his attendance. if he is not attending the court by issuing non-bailable warrant or other' process against him, 10. In my opinion, he is a most important material witness, who must be examined by the court, if not as P. W., certainly as court witness. Moreover he is the public servant and is still in service. The court can procure his attendance. if he is not attending the court by issuing non-bailable warrant or other' process against him, 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State this application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself to avoid further delay in the disposal of the case with a direction to the court below to get the I.O. Sri J. Jha examined in the case. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside with the aforesaid direction, HP. Application allowed.