IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39896 of 2009 LUTAN YADAV @ LUTAN RAI @ LOOTAN RAI S/O Late Jugeshwar Rai @ Jugeshwar Yadav R/O Village Champapur, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, District Patna. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 23/11/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner is an accused for the offence under sections 307/353 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25/26 of the Arms Act with a direct allegation that the petitioner wanted to attack the police force and of course firing opened by him did not hit any person, but then when he was sought to be apprehended a police constable had also sustained injuries in the hand of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire case is framed case by police, inasmuch as, no injury of such constable is available. He would also submit that the petitioner is in custody since 25.12.2007and has already been granted bail in the connected case under Arms Act. This Court would find that not only the petitioner is dare devil who has tried to attack on the police party but has also got dubious past of having series of criminal cases pending against him. That apart, the charges against the petitioner have already been framed on 17.11.2008 and therefore this Court would not be inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, but then as the petitioner has remained in custody almost for a period of two years, this Court would direct the trial court to ensure that trial of the petitioner is expedited and 2 concluded within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, in which period not only the present trial but also the connected trial of the petitioner under Arms Act must be concluded. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna is hereby directed to ensure that in both the cases which would squarely depend on the official witnesses, namely, the police personnels, such witnesses are made available against the petitioner in course of trial so that the same is concluded within the aforementioned time limit. If trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforementioned period, the petitioner will have liberty initially to move the trial court which will record reasons for not concluding the trial and thereafter only the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)