IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8923 of 2011 Shankar Yadav Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 4 07-07-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state. It would appear from perusal of the first information report that a Mini factory of illicit liquor was unearthed in the house of the petitioner. When the I.O. raided the said house, in that course, two persons were arrested who disclosed name of the petitioner. Paragraph-8 of the case diary supports the allegation and paragraph-35 demonstrates the criminal antecedent of the petitioner against whom, near about 23 cases were instituted prior to the lodging of the present case. The report of learned trial court shows that uptill now, the trial of the petitioner has not commenced. In view of the aforesaid circumstance, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No. 222 of 2010 stands rejected. However, the learned trial court should expedite the trial of the petitioner and dispose of the same within nine months from the date of receipt of this order and if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the above- said period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the learned court below itself. Let the order be communicated to the concerned court through fax at the cost of the petitioner. AKV/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)