IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1509 of 2011 RAGHUNATH THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR 03/ 28.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. P.P. for the State. Although the petitioner is named in the first information report with specific allegation that he along with one unknown person mercilessly assaulted the informant’s brother with Bhujali as a result of which informant’s brother died then and there but the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that informant is not an eye witness of the alleged occurrence that is why the written report was given by the informant after ten hours of the alleged occurrence. It is further stated by him that the deceased had some love affairs with the niece of the petitioner and on account of which the name of the petitioner has been given in this case on suspicion. On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor points out that in course of investigation the informant as well as some witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, particularly, this aspect of the matter that there is specific allegation of committing murder against the petitioner, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Daudpur P.S. Case no. 64 of 2010 stands rejected. However, the trial court shall take effective steps to - 2 - conclude the trial of the petitioner within nine months from the date of receipt of this order and if the trial is not concluded within the above stated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)