IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.12387 of 2011 SANJAY YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 29.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Although, Bairia P.S. Case No. 215 of 2000 was registered under Section 307, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act in the year 2000 but petitioner could be remanded in this case in the year 2010 from another case. The learned Sessions Judge has observed in his impugned order that the release of the petitioner would not be proper because it would affect the prospects of further prosecution evidence. It appears from the impugned order that the trial of the petitioner is going on and altogether five prosecution witnesses out of fifteen prosecution witnesses have already been examined though learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that up-till-now seven prosecution witnesses have been examined and the case is running for examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses. In view of the aforesaid circumstance, I do not feel it proper to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 358 of 2002 arising out of Bairia P.S. Case No. 215 of 2000, stands rejected. However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after nine months, if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the above stated period. Shahzad (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J )