JUDGMENT 1. Members of the Bar are abstaining from work today. 2. This Honble Court had passed the following order on 29.01.2019:- "1. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have moved misc. petition earlier also seeking directions with regard to submission of call details and tower locations to establish that petitioners were not involved in the crime and that the police personnel were not present at place where the recovery was effected. 2. It is contended that Superintendent of Police was directed to submit tower locations and call details before the Court below. Superintendent of Police has in order to save his skin not furnished the call details before the Court below. 3. It is contended that in the third misc. petition learned Public Prosecutor submitted a letter dated 24.11.2018 written by Superintendent of Police, Nagore, wherein it was mentioned that call details of different mobile numbers are already furnished in a CDR Cell Id Code before the Court below vide letter dated 17.04.2018 and tower mobile locations are also indicated in that CDR. 4. It is contended that in view of the assertions made by learned Public Prosecutor, the third misc. petition was dismissed, as the Court observed the orders dated 22.03.2017 and 06.09.2017 passed by the Court being already been complied. It is contended that a false statement was made before the Court. Tower locations have not been supplied before the Court below. 5. Considering the contention of counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to direct the then Superintendent of Police-Paras Deshmukh to appear in person in Court on 08.02.2019. 6. Trial Court is directed not to proceed further, till next date." 3. In compliance of the aforequoted order, the then Superintendent of Police Shri Parish Deshmukh appears in person before this Court today and explains that the required call details and tower locations were part of CDR and as required were furnished to the petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor also points out that the trial has already been finally concluded on 31.01.2019, as the interim order passed by this Court could not be communicated to the learned court below. Copy of the trial Courts judgment dated 31.01.2019 has also been furnished. 5. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor also points out that the trial has already been finally concluded on 31.01.2019, as the interim order passed by this Court could not be communicated to the learned court below. Copy of the trial Courts judgment dated 31.01.2019 has also been furnished. 5. After perusing the record of the case and hearing the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the then Superintendent of Police, Nagaur in person, this Court, in the given circumstances and in light of the aforementioned judgment of the trial court, finds that the present misc. petition has become infructuous. 6. Consequently, the present misc. petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.