IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10670 of 2008 NARAYAN MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 02.12.2008. I have perused the letter of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa. The learned Judge, in seisin of the trial, is proceeding on a misconceived notion that by order dated 8.5.2008, I had directed to conclude the trial within the stipulated period. I had given liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail before the court below itself in case trial is not concluded within three months. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, petitioner may choose to file application before the court below itself and on filing of such application, the court may come to the conclusion that the delay in disposal of the trial is attributable to the petitioner and therefore, may not accede to the prayer for grant of bail. As there is no direction to conclude the trial within a period of three months, the prayer made to extend the period by the learned Judge in seisin of the trial is absolutely misconceived. Let this order be communicated to the 2 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hilsa expeditiously. ahk (C. K. Prasad)