IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52574 of 2008 MADHU KHAN … … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Union of India … Opp. Parties For the petitioner: Shri S.K.B. Manglam For the State: Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP ----------- 2. 22.12.2008 Heard. The petitioner’s custody since 13.9.2003, granting bail to other accused persons and non-conclusion of the trial are the three circumstances which have been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for taking into account and reviewing the earlier rejection order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16939 of 2006. It is true that some of the accused persons have been admitted to bail by different Benches of this Court as may appear from Annexures-3 and 3/1 but I am not at all influenced by those circumstances because when annexure 1 was passed, atleast Annexures-3 was in existence and it could not be said that the same was not brought to the notice of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice who was hearing the petition himself and rejected it. As regards the trial, the learned 2 trial Judge has indicated that only one witness was left to be examined and probably the officials are the witnesses who have been cited as such in the complaint petition who could be required to be examined in the case. In fact, on perusal of the copy of the complaint petition which is the basis of the prosecution, I find that most of the official witnesses have already been examined. As such, it could be the probability that the independent witness could be the witness to seizure or any other fact of the case. In that view, I do not want to direct the release of the petitioner on bail. The petition is dismissed. However, a timeframe could be set down for the conclusion of the trial and it could be of six months from the date the court receives either officially or on account of being presented by the petitioner a copy of the present order. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)