IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1044 of 2011 BARKAT MIAN @ BARKAT ALI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.2649 of 2011 MD. JAVED Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --------- 04/ 26.03.2011 Both the above stated petitions arise out of Kotwali P.S. Case no. 110/2010 registered under section 302/34 of the IPC and accordingly, both the above stated petitions are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. P.P. for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the informant. Admittedly, petitioner in Cr. Misc.no.1044/2011 and the deceased are full brothers and alleged occurrence took place on account of some land dispute. It is stated that in course of aforesaid dispute petitioners started assaulting the deceased with iron rod and in that course petitioner in Cr. Misc.no.1044/2011 gave one blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which deceased sustained head injury. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in Cr. Misc.no.1044/2011 is that, according to the prosecution case itself, alleged occurrence took place on 18.3.2010 and after the alleged occurrence, injured was examined by the doctor at Munger hospital. It is pointed out by him that when the deceased was examined by the doctor of Munger, he disclosed that he sustained - 2 - injury in an accident. To substantiate his contention, he drew my attention towards annexure 2 to this application. He also submitted that again the deceased was admitted at Bhagalpur on 20.3.2010 and after that allegedly, he was referred to Patna but in between 18.3.2010 to 23.3.2010 no report was made to the police nor the informant even whispered the name of the petitioner and no explanation of the aforesaid delay has been given by the informant. It is contended by him that, as a matter of fact, on 18.3.2010, deceased sustained serious injury in an accident and when he died in course of his treatment, wife of the deceased lodged this false case against the petitioner on account of previous land dispute. On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing for the informant vehemently oppose the prayer submitting that there is specific allegation against the petitioners that they mercilessly assaulted the deceased with iron rod. Taking into consideration the above stated facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, I do not feel to extend the privilege of bail to petitioner (Barkat Mian @ Barkat Ali) in Cr. Misc.no.1044/2011. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. However, trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner in Cr. Misc.no.1044/2011 so as to conclude within nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the trial of the above stated petitioner is not concluded within the above stated period, the petitioner may - 3 - renew his prayer for bail. So far as petitioner in Cr. Misc.no.2649/2011 is concerned, there is no specific allegation against him. So, above stated petitioner, Md Javed, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Addl. Sessions Judge I, Munger in Sessions Case no. 846/2010 arising out of Munger Kotwali P.S. Case no. 110 of 2010. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)