IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8514 of 2008 NATHUNI MANDAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 15/5/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Petitioner is an accused for the offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report and his name came only on the basis of confessional statement of a co-accused and no one else had identified him. He further submits that no Test Identification Parade was held and no recovery has been made from his possession. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, with the help of order dated 10.1.2007 passed by Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, has submitted that at least seven witnesses have claimed to be identified the petitioner by name and such statements are available in paragraph nos. 6,7,9,12,13 and 57 of the case diary. He further submits that in the bail application it has not been mentioned that this part of the finding of the trial court is an error of records. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been identified in a case of dacoity by as many as seven witnesses, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner, however, 2 submits that petitioner is in custody since 15.12.2004, i.e, for almost three and half years. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of one and half years from today and to ensure that such trial is concluded either by completing the same with all accused persons or by separating the trial in case it is found that other accused persons are not appearing. In any event, trial of the petitioner must come to an end within a period of one and half years from today. In the event trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the aforementioned period, the petitioner will be at liberty to first move the trial court, and the trial court will spell out reasons for not concluding the trial and thereafter the petitioner will have liberty to move this Court for bail. With the above observation this application is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar.