IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41563 of 2009 1.YOGENDRA SAH Son of Late Ram Baran Sah 2.Rita Devi, Wife of Yogendra Sah (Both residents of village Narayanpur, P.S. Piprahi, District Sheohar). Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 3/12/2009 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioners facing prosecution for the offence under sections 366 (A) and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code had moved earlier for grant of bail in Cr. Misc. No.1108 of 2009 which was rejected by a reasoned order on 16.4.2009 on merits. After expiry of a period of around seven months this application again has been filed and this time learned counsel for the petitioner would make endeavor to again address this Court on merits of this case. In the opinion of this Court merits of the case was already adjudicated on the earlier occasion and if the petitioners were aggrieved by any portion thereof remedy for them was to prefer an appeal. This Court in absence of any fresh material is not in a position to take a different view at least on the merits of the same case. There being also no such observation giving liberty to the petitioners to file the present case this bail application is totally misconceived. The only plea taken by the learned counsel 2 for the petitioner that the petitioners have remained in custody for a period over 14 months also would not be good enough for either entertaining of a fresh bail application on the same materials muchless for granting them bail, inasmuch as, the maximum punishment under section 366 (A) of the I.P.C. is imprisonment for a period of ten years. One thing however would be clear that both petitioners are husband and wife and if they have remained in custody sine 16.10.2008 and 28.10.2008 respectively, it would be in the interest of justice to ensure that the trial of the petitioners itself be concluded expeditiously. Considering this aspect of the matter, this Court would direct the trial court to ensure that the trial of the petitioners is concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If trial of the petitioners is not concluded solely on account of laches on the part of the prosecution the petitioners shall have liberty initially to move the trial court which then would record its reasons for not concluding the trial whereafter only the petitioners can renew their prayer for bail before this Court. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)