IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1686 of 2009 BABUA @ BABUA SINGH @ PRASANJIT SINGH, son of Mandeshwari Prasad Singh, resident of village-Mohanpur, P.S.- Dharhara, District-Munger, presently at Mohalla Babutola Banka, P.S.- Banka, District-Banka-----------------------------------------Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.2900 of 2009 SUDARSHAN SINGH @ GHUTAR SINGH, son of late Praduman Singh, resident of village-Jethor Jamua, P.S.-Amarpur, District-Banka- ------------------------------------------------------------------------Petitioner. VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR WITH Cr.Misc. No.52809 of 2008 AJAY TANTI @ AJOY TANTI, son of late Modi Tanti, resident of village-Magdumma, P.S.-Amarpur, District-Banka------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 5.3.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. F.I.R. is lodged against unknown. No recovery is made from any of the petitioners. Petitioner of Cr. Misc. no.1686 of 2009 was put on T.I.P. but could not be identified even by the informant. Petitioner of Cr. Misc. no.52809 of 2008 is said to be the driver of the vehicle upon which informant was traveling and they are in custody since 16.9.2008 and 5.10.2008. As such, their further custody is not justified. Let the above named petitioners of Cr. Misc. no.1686 of 2009 and Cr. Misc. no.52809 of 2008 be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka, in connection with Amarpur P.S. case - 2 - no.173 of 2008 (G.R. no.1224 of 2008). As about petitioner of Cr.Misc. no.2900 of 2009, he was put on T.I.P. and identified by the informant for which submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that T.I.P. was conducted after a month of his arrest and he was made available by the police itself before the informant facilitating his identification but without showing any reason for doing so while that is not done with the rest of the co- accused persons. Thus, I find it not a fit case for bail even considering his custody. Accordingly, prayer for bail of petitioner of Cr. Misc. no.2900 of 2009 is rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and in case the same is not concluded within a period of six months, he will have the option to renew his prayer for bail. sudip ( Mandhata Singh, J )