IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14410 of 2010 MUKESH SINGH @ MUKESH KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 6 25.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The offence alleged is under Sections-379, 307 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that other co-accused persons were tried in Sessions Trial No. 448 of 2003 after bifurcating the trial of this petitioner. It is further submitted that the co-accused persons were tried vide Sessions Trial No. 448 of 2003 and they were acquitted. Even though the witnesses including the informant supported the prosecution, however, they did not say anything against the aforesaid persons as a result of which, they were acquitted after declaring the witnesses hostile. Petitioner submits that in view of this, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that trial of the petitioner was bifurcated on account of the fact that he absconded for a 2 pretty long time. Besides the above, petitioner has long antecedents in different cases for serious offences and as such, petitioner is not entitled to bail. Considering the rival submission of the parties as also the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is rejected. However, it goes without saying that trial of the petitioner be expedited without unnecessary delay. Jagdish/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)