Order : Bail application filed by petitioner Amit Kumar Gupta is moved by Sri Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and opposed by Sri Ajit Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 2. Earlier the bail prayer of the petitioner rejected after considering the affidavit filed by the State, wherein the letter dated 07.10.2015 of the Superintendent of Police, Gumla annexed as Annexure-A. In the said letter, the Superintendent of Police, Gumla, stated that witnesses namely, Gautam Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar, Smt. Nirmala Devi and Investigating Officer, B.K. Sinha will be produced in the learned court below within 04 months for their evidence. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of the aforesaid undertaking given by the Superintendent of Police, Gumla, all the witnesses have not been produced, therefore, the accused may be released on bail. 3. After noticing the fact that (inspite of undertaking) the Superintendent of Police, Gumla had not produced the witnesses within the time stipulated, this court has directed the Superintendent of Police, Gumla to remain physically present in this Court on 22.04.2016 and show cause as to why appropriate action not be taken against him. Today, the Superintendent of Police, Gumla physically appeared and filed show cause, wherein it is stated that the learned court below had issued bailable warrant of arrest against the witnesses namely, Gautam Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar and Smt. Nirmala Devi. It is stated that the bailable warrant of arrest executed against the aforesaid three witnesses and the were released on bail after taking undertaking from them that they would appear in the court below on 15.12.2015. It is stated in the show cause that on 15.12.2015, all the aforesaid three witnesses appeared in the court below, but the court below had examined only one witness namely, Gautam Kumar. It is further stated that thereafter no process issued against the aforesaid witnesses, therefore, the rest of the witnesses have not been produced. 4. It is worth mentioning that in the letter dated 07.10.2015 (Annexure-A to the B.A. No. 2401 of 2015), the Superintendent of Police, Gumla also undertook to produce the Investigating Officer, B.K. Sinha for his evidence within a period of 04 months, but the aforesaid witness had not been produced till date. 4. It is worth mentioning that in the letter dated 07.10.2015 (Annexure-A to the B.A. No. 2401 of 2015), the Superintendent of Police, Gumla also undertook to produce the Investigating Officer, B.K. Sinha for his evidence within a period of 04 months, but the aforesaid witness had not been produced till date. In this regard, in the show cause it is stated that since all the witnesses of fact had not been examined, therefore, the Investigating Officer had not been produced. It is also stated that no summons issued against the Investigating Officer by the learned court below. 5. The aforesaid excuse given by the Superintendent of Police, Gumla is misconceived and it appears that he has no knowledge of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Thus, the aforesaid provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically provides that it is the duty of prosecution to produce the witnesses. Section 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that on the application of prosecution, the court is required to issue process for ensuring the attendance of any witness. 6. From perusal of Annexure-C/1 of the show cause, I find that the witness namely, Gautam Kumar was partly examined on 15.12.2015 and his cross examination completed on 06.01.2016. Thereafter, the court below fixed the case for evidence on 05.02.2016, 02.03.2016 and 30.03.2016, but on those dates, no witness produced by the prosecution. There is nothing in Annexure-C/1 to show that the Public Prosecutor had filed any application in the court below for issuance of process against the remaining witnesses, including the Investigating Officer. In the show cause also, the Superintendent of Police, Gumla has nowhere stated that he had instructed the Public Prosecutor for filing the application in the court below for issuance of process against the witnesses including the Investigating Officer. Under the said circumstance, the excuse given by the Superintendent of Police, Gumla does not inspire confidence. 7. Moreover, in the letter dated 07.10.2015, the Superintendent of Police, Gumla gave undertaking that he will produce all the four witnesses within four months for their evidence. In the said letter, he has not stated that he will produce the witnesses only when the process will be issued against them. 7. Moreover, in the letter dated 07.10.2015, the Superintendent of Police, Gumla gave undertaking that he will produce all the four witnesses within four months for their evidence. In the said letter, he has not stated that he will produce the witnesses only when the process will be issued against them. Thus, I find that the Superintendent of Police, Gumla has violated the undertaking given in this Court and now taking the different excuses, which, in my view, is not acceptable. Under the said circumstance, I deprecate the action of the Superintendent of Police, Gumla for violating the undertaking given by him in this Court. Accordingly, I direct the Office to communicate this order to the Director General of Police, Jharkhand for entering the aforesaid acts an omission of the Superintendent of Police, Gumla in his “Annual Confidential Report”, so that the same can be looked into at the time of his promotion. 8. Since inspite of the undertaking given by the State and the Superintendent of Police, Gumla, all the witnesses have not been examined and petitioner is in custody from 01.09.2013, I allow this application and direct the court below to enlarge the petitioner, above named, on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I, Gumla in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No. 305 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 865 of 2013 (S.T. Case No.63 of 2014). Application allowed.