The court reiterates that the relevance of witnesses in criminal trials must be clearly established and that mere requests without substantial justification are insufficient.

1The petitioner, who is accused in different Scam Cases of Animal Husbandry Department (commonly known as 'Fodder Scam Cases'), having preferred these writ petitions and having raised common question, all the three writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
W.P. (Cr.) No. 74 of 2005
In this case, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8th February, 2005, passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I, Ranchi, in R. C. 5 (A) of 2000, whereby, the learned Court below while rejecting the prayer, made on behalf of the petitioner to issue summons under S.319 (sic) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on certain witness also rejected the prayer of the petitioner to record statements of the accused persons under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure along with the statement of the accused persons in R. C. 47(A) of 1996 (Pat.), recorded under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
From the statements, made on behalf of the petitioner, and the enclosures, attached with the writ petition, it appears that altogether 58 prosecution witnesses have been examined in R.C. 5(A) 2000. It is only at the time of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made to issue summons to several witnesses for their examination and cross - examination, such as, Sri M. T. Mang, PI, CBI, Silchar, Sri Sudip Roy, P.I. C.B.I. Calcutta, Sri Daulat Ram, P.I. C.B.I. New Delhi Sri B. Das, P.I., C.B.I. Calcutta, and eight others. It has been pleaded that although the aforesaid witnesses were cited by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short C.B.I.) as the witnesses of the case, they have not been examined in the said case. In another petition, it was prayed that the statements of the accused persons under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be taken along with the statement, as made by the accused persons under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in R.C. 47(A) of 1996 (Pat).
At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that in pursuance of an order, passed in Public Interest Litigation, preferred by one Sushil Kumar Modi, a Division Bench of Patna High Court vide its judgment, reported in 1996 (1) Pat LJR 561, having noticed a large scale of financial irregularities in Animal Husbandry Department of Govt. of Bihar, directed the C.B.I. to take up investigation to cover the period from 1977-78 to 1995-96 and to complete the investigation. The investigation of the State police in certain cases which were already instituted, were suspended and the State Government was directed to provide necessary facilities to the C.B.I. in such investigations. The aforesaid judgment of Patna High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ranchi Zila Samta Party , reported in 1996 (1) Pat LJR 97 : 1996 CriLJ 2168 (SC). While affirming the aforesaid judgment of Patna High Court, the Supreme Court directed that the investigation be transferred to the C.B.I. from the State and then to follow up of the matter expeditiously after the investigation is complete by the C.B.I. By the said order of the Court, a Monitoring Bench was also constituted.

2. A large number of cases, such as, RC 45(A) of 1996 (Pat), RC 46(A) of 1996 (Pat), RC 47(A) of 1996 (Pat), RC 28 (A) of 1997 (Pat), RC 3(A) of 1998 (AHD - Pat), RC 1(A) of 1999 (AHD - Pat), RC 1(A) of 2000 (AHD - Pat) RC 2(A) of 2001 (Ran) etc., were instituted against various accused persons. The petitioner along with others is also an accused in many of them, including RC 5(A) of 2000, RC 25(A) of 1996 etc.
W.P. (Cr.) No. 154 of 2005
In this case, the petitioner has challeng