IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36460 of 2010 RAVI LAL HANSDA, Son of Late Babul al Hansda , resident of village- Tegar Mari, Belwa, P.S. Kishanganj, District-Kishanganj -------------------Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03 07-12-2010 Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel who was assisted by Sri Diwakar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. The sole petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Sessions Trial No.977 of 2010 arising out of Kishanganj P.S. Case No.135 of 2010 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the informant heard that his father was killed by this petitioner. Thereafter, he visited the place of occurrence and having seen the informant, the petitioner started fleeing away. However after chase the petitioner was apprehended. It was alleged that the petitioner had killed the father of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing the bail petition, submits that in the present case, there is no eye witness. It was submitted that F.I.R. was registered on 19.5.2010. However, none of the persons came forward claiming to be the eye witness of the occurrence. However, after a lapse of 23 days from the date of occurrence, one person was examined and he was treated 2 as eye witness to the occurrence. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. It was submitted that number of witnesses have disclosed that this petitioner was the sole assailant in the crime and moreover the case has already been committed to the court of Session. As such, it was submitted that the prayer for bail may be rejected. Without going into the merit of the case and keeping in view the fact that the case has already been committed to the court of Session, the Court is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to extend the privilege of bail to this petitioner at this stage. However, if the trial is not concluded expeditiously, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail With the above observation and direction, the prayer for bail stands rejected. NKS/- ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)