IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42778 of 2009 LALO YADAV S/O Shivu Yadav resident of village Sonvarsha, P.S. Samho Dist. Begusrai. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 15/12/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner, facing prosecution for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has his defence that there is no specific overt-act alleged against him and that other co-accused have been released on bail by this Court. Mr. Bikramdeo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner belongs to a very poor cross section of the society and that is why he could not appear in this case even though he was named in the First Information Report lodged in the year 2001. He would therefore submit that the poverty of the petitioner would be the only ground for giving similar treatment to him as was given to other co-accused while releasing on bail. Mr. Singh would finally submit that even those who had surrendered in time, when their trial was taken up they too were acquitted of their charges. In the opinion of this Court, all these things could have been acceptable if the petitioner had shown his inclination to be a law abiding Citizen. The modus 2 operandi of the petitioner that he had remained absconding for a considerable length of time for getting the trial concluded against some of the appearing co-accused cannot be appreciated. Therefore, when this Court would not find any plausible explanation for not surrendering of the petitioner in this case, it would not direct the petitioner to be released on bail, for giving encouragement to a dubious practice being adopted these days. The petitioner is in custody since 19.3.2009 and therefore if the charges against the petitioner have already been framed, the trial court must make all its endeavor to conclude the trial of the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that if for any reason totally attributable to the prosecution the trial of the petitioner would not be concluded the petitioner will have liberty initially to move the trial court which would then record reasons for not concluding the trial, whereafter only the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)