JUDGMENT 1. -ln this petition under section 482. Cr.P.C. the pet. tioner is seeking direction to the trial Court - the Additional Sessions Judge Ratangarh, to ensure the service of the prosecution witnesses - Teeja Devi and Birju Ram, in Sessions Case No. 46/98 - State v. Bhagirath and if possible, the SHO concerned may be directed to get the summons served per identification by father of the petitioner so that the examination of the witnesses is expedited to implement the directions given by this Court while deciding the bail application of the petitioner ordered on 9.11.1998, that the petitioner may file fresh bail application after statements of Teeja Devi and Birju Ram are recorded by the trial Court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court issued the summons which were served upon Teeja Devi but she did not attend the Court. The summons of Birju Ram was returned unnerved with the remark that he was out of station. He further submitted that Birju Ram was very much present in the village and it is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that both the witnesses are avoiding the service of summons and attendance in the Court to delay their examination so that the petitioner may not exercise his right to file fresh bail application after their examination. Thus, the petitioner is continuing in judicial custody without recording their statement. It is further contended that summons were served later on but the witnesses again did not appear and the learned trial Court has issued bailable warrants to procure their attendance. In these circumstances, it is urged that suitable directions may be given to the trial Court as prayed in the petition. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor though did not object to the prayer made in the petition, however, he submitted that no directions from this Court are necessary with regard to service of the summons to the witnesses. The trial Court has all the powers under the Cr.P.C. to make effective orders to force service of summons and to procure the attendance of the witnesses. The trial Court has all the powers under the Cr.P.C. to make effective orders to force service of summons and to procure the attendance of the witnesses. The petitioner is at liberty to make oral or written request before the trial Court as and when the situation warrants it and the learned trial Court can pass appropriate orders" because it is not such a matter which may be enquired here ai to why witnesses could not appear despite service of summons. 4. I have bestowed my earliest consideration to the contentions on behalf of both the sides. I am inclined to agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that no specific directions are required to be given to the trial Court for issuing process to compel attendance of the witnesses because there are clear provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure and general criminal rules. There is no material to show that the trial Court is not making due efforts for procuring the attendance of the witnesses and earliest possible examination of the two witnesses Teeja Devi and Birju Ram. Of course, this Court directed the trial Court to record the statements of above named two witnesses so that petitioner may file fresh bail application if so advised. In view of this direction and accused being in judicial custody it is really expected of the trial Court to ensure that the witnesses are served and their statements are recorded at the earliest possible. It will he appropriate if the petitioner prays orally or in writing before the trial Court for taking effective steps to get the process served upon the witnesses and the trial Court may pass necessary orders including service of the summons per identification of any person on behalf of the petitioner. 5. With the above observations, I hold that no specific directions are required to be given for the trial Court in this petition and this petition stands disposed of accordingly.Orders accordingly. *******