IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31309 of 2009 Abhay Shanker Singh @ Abhyanker Singh @ Panna Singh, Son of Sri Jawahar Singh alias Mukesh Singh, Resident of Village and P.S. Singhia, District Samastipur. -------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ------- Opp. Party With Cr.Misc. No.31310 of 2009 Niranjan Singh, Son of Sri Hira Sigh, Resident of Village and P.S. Singhia, District Samastipur. ------ Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar ---------- Opp. Party ----------- 3 14.10.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as also counsel for the informant in both the cases arising out of the same F.I.R. under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and allied offences. There being a direct allegation of causing fire arm injury by both the petitioners and their being also corroborated in the postmortem report, the petitioners prima-facie appear to be the main assailants of the deceased. Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would however draw attention of this Court towards the inordinate delay of more than eight hours in lodging of the First 2 Information Report in the morning despite the police arriving at the place of occurrence in the night itself and thus every possibility of false implication of the petitioners at the instance of the informant who did not claim to be not an eye witness. From perusal of the paragraph no.2 of the Case Diary, it however would transpire that when the deceased was done to death in a brutal manner, there was a big commotion in the whole village and a large number of agitated villagers did not allow the subordinate police officers to do anything, muchless, record the statement of the family members including that of the informant till arrival of senior police officers and pacifying the agitated villagers. The scenario being thus one in which the police could not record the statement of the informant or other persons by itself in the night cannot be the only circumstance to disbelieve the entire prosecution case which stands corroborated in the statement of several eye-witnesses. Considering, however, that the petitioners still are at the stage of seeking 3 bail and anything said by this Court would prejudice either side, this Court would, therefore, simply reject their prayer for bail of the petitioners for the present. Taking into account that the petitioners are in custody since 2.5.2009 and the counsel for the informant gives an undertaking on behalf of the informant that he is prepared to produce his witnesses promptly as and when directed by the trial court, this Court would direct that the trial of the petitioners after their being committed to the court of sessions would be expedited and concluded by the trial court preferably within a period of one and a half year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The trial court will keep in mind that merely because either side may move this Court again against its any interlocutory order(s), that by itself would not be a ground for staying the trial. With the aforesaid observation and direction, both the applications are dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)