IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22791 of 2009 ANIL DAS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 12.8.2009 Heard Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a fact has wrongly been recorded by me in my earlier order (Annexure-2). The error pointed out, is that the court was mentioning the recovery of a set of two country made pistols from the cooking utensils, however, the FIR indicates, the recovery of only one fire arm. I have gone through the FIR to verify the submission which is found correct. The contention for directing the release of the petitioner is that since last about ten months, the court has not been able to finish the trial of the case though while passing the order on 5.6.2009 on the prayer for bail of the petitioner, the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif was pointing out that as many as five witnesses out of six had already been examined. - 2 - I direct the court below to conclude the trial in a further period of six months, else to explain to this court by assigning reasons as to why he could not do it. Considering that the trial could be concluded at any moment of time, and within a period of six months from now, the court is not inclined to direct the release of the petitioner on bail. Petition is again dismissed. The court wants to point out that it does not mean that the judgement has to be delivered within that period, if the facts permit, the court must strive to deliver the judgement at an early point of time. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )