IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33657 of 2010 SURESH MANJHI, SON OF KESHO MANJHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BALTHAR, POLICE STATION- BARACHATTI, DISTRICT-GAYA…………..PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR………………OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, A.P.P. ---------- 4. 3.11.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Section 17 C.L.A. Act. The prayer for bail of the petitioner had earlier been rejected vide order dated 30.3.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. No.42764 of 2009, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-‘1’ to this application. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the explosive materials were not recovered from his possession rather the same was recovered from the community hall. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 26.9.2009. Learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the huge 2 quantity of explosive materials were recovered from the possession of the premises, which was under the control and possession of the petitioner as he was holding the key and he had opened the lock of the same thereafter recovery was made. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. As a result, this application is dismissed. However, when the earlier order was passed, it was urged that charge sheet was already submitted. From the report, kept at flag ‘P’ of the court below, it appears that the case has been committed to the court of sessions on 28.9.2010, i.e., after a lapse of about one and half years. There is no sufficient progress in the trial. Now, as the case has already been committed to the court of Sessions, it is expected from the trial court that all steps for expeditious disposal of the trial would be taken, which should preferably be concluded within six months. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period without any fault on part of the petitioner, he would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)