IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41923 of 2009 SOMARU MANJHI son of Mallik Manjhi, resident of village- Gonpura Mushari, Pokharpor, P. S.- Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna… Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 17.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by an order dated 12.5.2008 in Cr. Misc. No. 42794 of 2007. Subsequently, the same prayer of the petitioner for bail was again rejected by this Court by an order dated 10.12.2008 in Cr. Misc. No. 49901 of 2008 recording therein that there was no fresh material for reconsideration of the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner would now submit that the petitioner is in custody since 14.8.2006 i.e. for a period over four and a half years and yet the end of the trial of the petitioner is no where in sight. Earlier this Court had called for a report from the trial court as with regard to the stage of trial and the time likely to be consumed in concluding the trial. Trial Court report dated 11.8.2010 however indicated that no witness was made available to the court and as such on 2 the basis of said report of the trial court this Court had called for explanation from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna as to the reason for not producing the prosecution witness in connection with Phulwari Sharif P. S. Case No. 410 of 2001 (Sessions Trial No. 1390 of 2006). From the report that has been submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police relying on the report of Inspector of Police -cum-Officer in Charge of Phulwari Sharif Police Station, it is believed that all the four prosecution witnesses had been examined and the case was awaiting the deposition of one Jitani Devi about whom it was mentioned that she was to be examined on 21.2.2011. That being so, when the trial court in its report had clearly indicated that if the witnesses could be made available, the trial of the petitioner would be concluded within a period of one year i.e. by 11.8.2011, this Court would not find any reason to now grant bail to the petitioner who as noted above in the earlier order rejecting his prayer for bail, is one of the main assailant. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is, 3 hereby, once again rejected. However, the trial court is directed to ensure that the trial of the petitioner is concluded positively on or before 11th August 2011 by which time the petitioner, in fact, would also complete judicial custody for a period of five years. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded for any reason by 11th August 2011, the petitioner shall have liberty to move this Court for grant of bail. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is dismissed. Kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)