IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.397 of 2010 BIKAU SAH son of late Hira Sah, resident of village-Purushottampur, P.S.-Purushottampur, Dist.-West Champaran. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 23.2.2010 Heard Mr.Sanjeev Kumar No.1, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Satish Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. The petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Purushottampur P.S. Case No.14 of 2009 registered for the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the bail petition submits that occurrence appears to have taken place in spur of the moment and there was no intention to kill the brother of the informant. He submits that in the postmortem report it has come that death has occurred due to single head injury which was found to be given by hard and blunt substance. Accordingly, he submits that in the present case section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be applied. He submits that in view of exception of section 4 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code it is evident that it is not a case of section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and, as such, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. Learned counsel for the informant while opposing the prayer for bail submits that from perusal of the first information report it appears that there is allegation of giving repeated blow by bamboo on the person of the deceased and, as such, argument 2 advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner may not be entertained that too particularly at the stage while hearing the bail petition. He submits that things can be looked into during the trial. Learned counsel for the State supports the stands taken by the learned counsel for the informant. After hearing the parties, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. However, since the petitioner is in jail since 7.7.2009 it is desirable that the court below may be directed to initiate and conclude the trial expeditiously. It is made clear that if the trial is not concluded within one year from today the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. It is indicated that the defence will not take flimsy ground in delaying the trial only with a view of circumvent the present order. With the above observation and direction, the prayer for grant of bail is rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)