IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40905 of 2010 PHOOL KHAN, SON OF MOBIN KHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RATAN, P.S. GOGARI, DISTRICT-KHAGARIA. …………………………………………………...PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR………………OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate and Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. S.A. Ahmad, A.P.P. ------------ 4. 13.4.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. I have also perused the report, kept at flag-‘A’. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 364, 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 27 of the Arms Act. The bail applications of the petitioner had earlier been rejected twice vide order dated 6.10.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. No.21168 of 2009 and order dated 30.6.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. No.11532 of 2010. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since no hearing for framing of charge could be done at that point of time, the bail applications of the petitioner were 2 rejected at that stage. It is submitted that now the charges have been framed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case on the basis of his self incriminating confessional statement and in the confessional statement, it has been stated that the co-accused, Pyare Khan, is the assailant. It is also submitted that in the protest petition filed by the informant, the allegation of causing the death of the deceased has been made upon the co-accused, Pyare Khan. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was accompanying him. It is also contended that the petitioner is in custody since 11.1.2009 and even after completion of two years in judicial custody, only two witnesses have been examined in this case. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, submits that on the basis of the confessionals statement of the petitioner, the mutilated dead body of the deceased was recovered from the place described in the statement of the petitioner. It is also submitted that as per the materials available on record, it appears that the petitioner was involved in the kidnapping of the deceased alongwith the co-accused, Pyare Khan and Mintu Khan. It has also come that the deceased was killed in the house of the co-accused, Pyare 3 Khan. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. As a result, the bail application of the petitioner is rejected at this stage. However, it appears that the petitioner is in custody since 11.1.2009 and though charges have been framed on 23.9.2010 itself, only two witnesses have been examined as yet. In the above view of the matter, it is expected from the trial court to take steps for expeditious disposal of the trial, preferably, within a period of nine months. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period of nine months, the petitioner, if he so advised, would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. P.S./Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)