IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.35081 of 2010 TUNTUN MAHTO son of Dinesh Prasad @ Dinesh Mahto Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 29.09.2010 Heard counsel for the parties. Petitioner is an accused in a case under sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. It is alleged that while the informant’s father was fleeing away, the petitioner opened fire. Thereafter, it is alleged that one Ravi Mahto also opened fire at him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of allegations in the First Information Report, the petitioner at best could have caused the injury on the back. He further submits that injury on the head cannot be attributed to him, as in the deposition the deceased’s wife P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 stated that Ravi Mahto caused fire arm injury on the head and this petitioner fired at the chest. He further submits that in the trial there is a departure from the versions made by the prosecution in the case. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.03.2008 and has remained for more than two and half years. He submits that six witnesses have been examined and the last witness has been examined in January 2010. Heard counsel for the parties, this Court directs the trial court to conclude the trial preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Furthermore, the 2 prosecution side should take steps to produce the relevant witnesses. In case, the trial does not conclude within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. Anjani. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)