IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16523 of 2011 PAPPU YADAV, SON OF AYODHYA YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 18.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was refused bail by an order dated 1.12.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. 33963 of 2009 and also by an order dated 1.9.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. 21381 of 2010 considering the merits of the case. On 1.9.2010 the Informant undertook before this Court not to delay the trial and he ensured smooth trial. It has been submitted that the petitioner was being tried vide Sessions Trial No. 501 of 2010 in which all the witnesses were examined and only the prosecution arguments were to be heard after which Judgment was to be delivered. Since some co-accused persons were absconding, a separate Sessions Trial No. 825 of 2010 proceeded against them. The Informant after close of evidence, filed a transfer petition before the Sessions Judge, Munger, in which the Sessions Judge ordered amalgamation of both the trials after the later trial came to the same stage as the present trial. He also directed that the Trial Court should consider amendment of charge. It has been submitted that only four witnesses in Sessions Trial No. 825 of 2010 have been examined as also the charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the same is now at the arguments stage sought to be amended to one also under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Informant only to delay the trial. 2 In view of the order of Sessions Judge, Munger, passed in Cr. Transfer No. 16 of 2011, regarding amalgamation of both the trials (Sessions Trial No. 501 of 2010 and Sessions Trial No. 825 of 2010), this Court directs the Trial Court to take up the Sessions Trial 825 of 2010 on day-to-day basis and ensure attendance of all the witnesses within shortest possible time so that there is no further delay in delivering of Judgment of Sessions Trial No. 501 of 2010. This Court may also observe that in the facts of the case, the Trial Court will also consider as to whether amendment of charge under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code is at all necessary since in a catena of decisions, it has been held that even if the accused is charged under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, he can very well be convicted under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. In view of the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to review the earlier orders. The application is once again rejected. However, if the Informant attempts to delay Sessions Trial No. 825 of 2010, this Court may consider grant of bail to the petitioner at that stage. Let this order be communicated to the court of A.D.J. Sheikhpura, in Sessions Trial No. 501 of 2010 through FAX at the cost of the petitioner. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)