IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.15788 of 2011 Sujay Mandal Son of Ramdeo Mandal, resident of village Majhaulia, Police Station Bathnaha, District Sitamarhi … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR… .. OPPOSITE PARTY For the Petitioner: Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate For the State : None ----------- 4 14.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, none appears on behalf of the State. I have also perused the report kept at Flag A. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under sections 341, 234, 307 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. Petitioner’s prayer for bail was rejected twice, i.e., on first occasion vide order dated 27.11.2009 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 36773 of 2009 and thereafter on 04.08.2010 by an order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 26385 of 2010, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure 1. As per the allegation, the petitioner appears to be the assailant of the deceased. However, a ground has been taken that from perusal of the first information report itself 2 it appears that the informant cannot be treated to be an eye- witness. However, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner has been rejected twice on merit. No fresh ground could be put forward by the petitioner for grant of bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. As a result, this application is dismissed. However, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has remained in custody since 20.07.2009 and though there was direction vide Annexure 1 to dispose of the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months, but even after lapse of one year the trial has not been concluded which would be apparent from the report itself. In the report it has been stated that five prosecution witnesses have already been examined, however, a petition under section 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed on 09.10.2010 and summons were issued against the newly added accused persons. Thereafter, subsequently charges have been framed against the four newly added accused persons who have been described in the report. Thereafter, the trial court separated the trial of these accused 3 persons from that of the petitioner. It is also stated that 17 chargesheet witnesses including the Investigating Officer and the doctor are to be examined. Be that as it may, in view of the earlier direction and also in view of the period of incarceration of the petitioner, I deem it desirable to direct the trial court to take steps for expeditious disposal of the trial preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is also expected from the Superintendent of Police , Sitamarhi to ensure that the prosecution witnesses are produced on the date(s) fixed for their examination. However, if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period without any fault on part of the petitioner then he, if so desires, would be at liberty to renew his prayer for grant of bail. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)