IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.11271 of 2009 ***** Nitesh Yadav @ Nitish Yadav @ Birbal Yadav S/o Horil Jadav, resident of village- Rajpur, P.S. Partappur, Distt.-Chatra (Jharkhand). …. …. Petitioner Versus Union of India through C.B.I. …. …. OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 3. 14.9.2009. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I. Petitioner is n custody since 16.9.2005 in RC- 4)S)/2002/SIC. IV/ND instituted on 23.3.2002 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 353 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 Arms Act as well as newly added Section of POTA, which originated from Nauhatta P.S. Case No.4/2002. Initially Nauhatta P.S. Case No.4/2002 was instituted on 15.2.2002 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 353, 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 Arms Act and 17 of Criminal Law Amendment Act after the murder of one Sanjay Kumar Singh, who was the Divisional Forest Officer of Shahabad Division at Sasaram. It is alleged that a group of extremists belonging to the M.C.C. had demanded five lacs rupess as rangdari from the D.F.O., Sanjay Kumar Singh, when he did not succumb to such demands because of his strict enforcement of the law in the forest area under his jurisdiction, he has been eliminated in a brutal manner. The issue created quite a hue and cry which led to investigation being handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Central Bureau of Investigation has investigated the matter and based on the evidence as well as the confession of the present petitioner, which is anyway admissible under the POTA Act stands charge-sheeted. - 2 - Submission of learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that he has been in custody for almost four years and the trial has not gone beyond a point, therefore, he should be permitted to be enlarged on bail and he is willing to cooperate in trial in the matter. Learned counsel representing the Central Bureau of Investigation submits that enlarging the petitioner on bail will mean that the trial can never be concluded. There is sufficiency of material which has come during investigation where the petitioner has emerged as part and parcel of conspiracy as well as the actual execution of the Divisional Forest Officer in question. In fact there is effort to see that the trial does not go beyond a point and it is being dragged on to derive the benefit of bail in the present matter. Looking at the seriousness and the background under which the crime has been committed it is after much effort made by the Central Bureau of Investigation that many a accused persons have been brought to book, many are still absconding and therefore the trial is going on piecemeal and some persons have already been convicted, petitioner’s matter is also going on and the petitioner and other accused cooperate in the matter the trial will be concluded. The background of the petitioner what it is no amount of condition put on him is going to ensure his presence in the trial. Matter being what it is this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Prayer for bail is rejected. Let the prosecution ensure that the trial is concluded at the earliest. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)