IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42332 of 2009 BHUPENDRA RAJAK, S/o Late Bilas Rajak, resident of village Lapura, P.S. Aurangabad Muffasil, District Aurangabad Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 8.12.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner facing prosecution for offence u/s 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act has his defence that not only he has remained unnamed in the F.I.R. but others including the person on whose confessional statement he has been made accused has already been granted bail. This Court would find that the involvement of the petitioner in this case surfaced way back in the year 2005 by way of confessional statement and yet the petitioner remained absconding for a period of four years. That apart the petitioner is said to be accused at least in three cases apart from the present case in which again while one of them is also for offence u/s 353 I.P.C. the other one is for offence u/s 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Ordinarily grant of bail to co- accused therefore could have been a valid 2 ground but then considering the aforementioned conduct of the petitioner, namely, his having criminal antecedent and remaining away for a period of almost 4 years would make his case distinguishable and accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected with a direction to the trial court to ensure that the trial of the petitioner is expedited and concluded expeditiously preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If the trial of the petitioner would not be concluded in the aforementioned period for deliberate laches on the part of the prosecution the petitioner shall have the liberty initially to move the trial court which then would record reasons for not concluding the trial, only whereafter the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J,) Surendra/