IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.41454 of 2008 GHONTI YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 23.12.2008 Heard. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under sections 395,397 and 412 IPC. The FIR was lodged against unknown, but subsequently on the basis of certain confessional statements, some looted articles are said to have been recovered from the house of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had earlier moved this Court for grant of bail which was heard and disposed of under order dated 9.5.2008 in the following manner: “ Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first information report is against unknown. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected because the looted television and stabilizer are said to have been recovered from the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to several paragraphs of the case diary and submitted that the alleged articles were not recovered from the residence of the petitioner rather they are said to have been recovered from the place which of course is the house of the petitioner but under construction having open windows and doors. Under the circumstances, the petitioner at least deserves to be enlarged on bail. There has been no T.I. parade also. The petitioner is in custody since 20.8.2007. From perusal of the lower court record and the case diary, it appears that the name of the petitioner has come in the confessional statement of the co-accused and there is recovery also from his house, though under construction, I do not feel inclined to release the petitioner on bail. His prayer for bail is rejected for the present.” This Court under order dated 21.11.2008 called for the - 2 - status report regarding the stage of the trial. The said report has been submitted. It appears that the trial court is taking all steps to commence the trial. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is in custody since 20th August,2007 and some of the co-accuseds have been released on bail by this Court. Be that as it may, in view of the facts noted above, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. His application for bail is rejected. However, having regard to the fact that he has remained in custody for nearly one and half years and that his application for bail was rejected “for the present”, this Court observes as under: Let the trial court take all steps to conclude the trial within five months from the date of receipt of a copy this order and in the event the trial is not concluded within the said period, for no fault of the petitioner, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )