IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10450 of 2010 1. ABDUL GANI @ ABDUL GHANI, son of late Abdul Quashim 2. Mokhtar Alam, son of Abdul Gani @ Abdul Ghani 3. Akhtar Alam, son of Abdul Gani @ Abdul Ghani 4. Safiullah, son of son of Abdul Gani @ Abdul Ghani 5. Tarik Anwar, son of son of Abdul Gani @ Abdul Ghani All are resident of village Balbhadrapur, P.S. Birpur, District Supaul Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 14.7.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. The prayer for bail of the petitioners was earlier rejected by this Court by an order dated 24.11.2009 in Cr.Misc.No. 39143/2009 by making an observation that the petitioners would be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail before the appellate court where the appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was pending consideration. It appears that the petitioners thereafter had filed bail application on 8.12.2009 i.e. only 14 days after rejection of their prayer for bail by this Court. The court below while rejecting the prayer for bail once again has recorded as follows: “6. Record shows that this appeal has been filed on 12.8.2009 and has 2 been admitted on 18.8.2009 with a direction to the appellants to submit the requisites, since the appellants has made Md. Mustaque as O.P.No.2, and O.P.No.1 is State of Bihar. 7. Record further shows that this court directed several times to the appellants to file the requisties but till now the same has not been submitted by the appellants and so progress of the appeal is stacked, and the appellants after conviction seeking bail and not complying the order of this court so that the appeal be heard on merit. 8. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to file the requisites at once so that attendance of the O.P.No.2 Md. Mustaque may be secured and just after his attendance this appeal be heard on merit. Accordingly, the application of bail of the appellants is disposed of with the aforesaid direction i.e. for filing of the requisites. Put up on 9.3.10.” In the opinion of this Court if the petitioners themselves had not tried to get the notices of appeal served on O.P.No.2 they cannot take advantage of their own wrong by taking only a plea that their Pairvikar had done such an act. 3 Be that as it may, from the order dated 19.3.2010 it would appear that the order of the court below dated 18.8.2009 with regard to filing requisites as against O.P.No.2 was ultimately complied after seven months of the order. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, also informs that O.P.No.2 has since appeared. If that be so, the court below in the impugned order has itself indicated that the appeal of the petitioners could be heard on merit and disposed of as soon as the presence of O.P.No.2 would be secured. Now that O.P.No.2 has already appeared, this Court would direct the court below to decide the appeal of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If the appeal of the petitioners, however, for any reason not attributable to the petitioners at least, would not be disposed of in the aforementioned period, the court below will reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioners without being prejudiced by this order or his earlier orders. 4 With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below by fax if the cost for the same is deposited by the counsel for the petitioners. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/