IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.24308 of 2011 Nandan Das & Anr. Versus The State Of Bihar ------ 03/ 05.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioners are in jail custody since 20.6.2010 in a case registered under section 304B/34 of the IPC. Admittedly, petitioner no.1 is husband whereas petitioner no. 2 is dewar of the deceased. Although there is allegation against these petitioners that they subjected the deceased into cruelty and harassment on account of non-fulfillment of illegal demand of ornaments and subsequently, petitioners and their other family members killed the deceased by administering poison. The contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that petitioner no.2 is separate from petitioner no.1 and he has no concern with the affair of petitioner no.1. It is also contended by him that petitioner no.2 is junior member of the family. So, even if the story of demand assumed to be true, then also, petitioner no.2 was not going to be benefited by the aforesaid demand. Taking into consideration the above stated facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, let the petitioner no.2, Kundan Das, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Addl. Sessions Judge III, Naugachhia in Sessions Trial no. 253 - 2 - of 2011/ 1027 of 2010 arising out of Bihpur P.S. Case no. 142/2010. So far as petitioner no.1, namely, Nandan Das is concerned, I am not inclined to release him on bail, at least, at this stage. Accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with the above stated case is, hereby, rejected. However, petitioner no.1 is in jail custody since 20.6.2010 and his case has already been committed to the court of sessions, the concerned court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and shall conclude the same within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the above stated period, petitioner no.1 may renew his prayer for bail before the trial court itself. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)