IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29484 of 2009 BIPIN KUMAR @ BIPIN SHARMA, son of Mundrika Singh, Village Bauri, P.S. Hulasganj, District Jehanabad Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 24.2.2010 Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer for bail of the petitioner facing allegation under Section 392 I.P.C. was earlier rejected on two occasions by this Court on merit the last one being 10.9.2008, wherein liberty was given to the petitioner to move after a period of nine months. The court below in its report dated 8.10.2009 at flag-'Y' has stated that on account of non-appearance on the part of the accused Bipin Kumar as also absence of Kundan Kumar Sharma the trial could not progress though five prosecution witnesses were produced by the A.P.P. on 29.7.2009. It also appears that the accused Bipin Kumar had been taken on remand on his being produced in a case pending against him at Daltonganj and therefore, the trial could not progress for a period commencing from 2 6.12.2008 when he was sent to Daltonganj and until 15.9.2009 when he had returned back from Daltonganj. From the latest report of the Jail Superintendent dated 5.1.2010 it however appears that after return from Daltonganj the condition of the petitioner has somewhat deteriorated and it is said he is not in a position to do his daily routine duties on account of mental ailment. Considering the aforementioned aspects and the report of the trial court at Flag-'Y' dated 8.10.2009 informing this Court that it would make all endeavor to complete the trial within a period of six months, while this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner for the present, it would however make it clear that if the trial of the petitioner is not taken up on day to day basis and concluded within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the petitioner would at liberty to move afresh for bail before the trial court and this time the trial court would be obliged to record the reasons for not concluding the trial and only thereafter the petitioner may 3 renew his prayer for bail before this Court. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court at once for its strict compliance. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/