IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38497 of 2009 Kari Paswan, Son of Upendra Paswan, Resident of Village Bihat, Khairaji Tola, P.S. Barauni (F.C.I.), District Begusarai. -------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar --------- Opposite Party ----------- 2 11.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner is the main accused in the First Information Report lodged in the year 2003 and it is on record that the petitioner could ultimately be nabbed after almost six years on 20.2.2009. The petitioner seems to be the main person, inasmuch as, it was under his leadership and he, being in possession of the fire-arm with other five persons, had committed the murder of the husband of the informant. True it is that the informant is not the eye-witness but then such occurrence was seen by other persons even named in the First Information Report and all of them have unequivocally named the petitioner to be the main person indulging in the murder. The petitioner has also criminal antecedent. In the aforementioned circumstances, this Court, basically taking into account that 2 the petitioner had remained absconding for a period of six years, is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. This Court would not be impressed with the order granting bail to the other co-accused who definitely had moved this Court well within time and in fact most of them were granted bail in between March, 2004 to August, 2004 as they had surrendered or have been arrested earlier. It is on record that the trial of the petitioner had to be segregated on the ground of his remaining absconding. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Kari Paswan is rejected. Nonetheless, now the trial against the petitioner has been started, inasmuch as, charges have been framed and witnesses have been directed to appear. That being so, this Court would direct the trial court to ensure that the trial of the petitioner against him is concluded in next nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If for the reasons solely attributable to the prosecution, such a trial of the petitioner would not be concluded within the 3 aforementioned period of nine months, the petitioner will have the liberty to move initially the trial court which will have to record reasons for not concluding the trial and only thereafter, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)