IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40429 of 2008 RAM RAJ SINGH @ RAJA RAM SINGH Versus STATE OF BIHAR - - - - 2. 22.9.2008 Heard. This is the third attempt on behalf of the petitioner for bail, earlier two orders were passed in Cr. Misc. No. 136 of 2007 and 51251 of 2007. The merit of the case, besides, custody period of the petitioner are the grounds for making the renewal prayer. The merit is that it could be an act which could not be premeditated and it could be on the spur of the moment and the petitioner is in custody since 18.7. 2006. The question on fact and law could be adjudicated upon by the court below in the light of the evidence which could be available to it. As regards the custody, one may not lose sight of the fact that it is a case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner, allegedly, pierced a bhala into the stomach of the deceased. The petition is dismissed. However, when the prayer for bail of an 2 accused including the assailant, as in the present case, is refused it is always expected that the Judge, specially the trial Judge, assigns the reason as to why he has not been able in expediting the hearing or what hurdles he was facing in such expeditious disposal of the case. Drawing a laconic order, devoid of any material on the pendency of the case, does not appear within the fitness of things specially when an accused is in custody. The court below could remind itself that theory of innocence is not an academic question, rather, is a human right and keeping the trial pending without any headway in the case could be trampling the human right of an accused. I believe, the court could understand the implication of the observation of this Court and acts, specially, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Shailendra Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar: A.I.R. 2002, S.C. 270 as regards the production of the witnesses. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)