IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26199 of 2009 1. AJAY YADAV, son of Ganesh Yadav, resident of village Paniyalachak, P.S. Naya Ram Nagar, District Munger 2. Kare Lal Yadav, son of late Yugal Yadav, resident of village Khas Patam, P.S. Naya Ram Nagar, District Munger Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 6.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. The petitioners have been made accused for offence u/ss 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act. There is direct recovery from their conscious possession of materials which falls within the definition of explosive substance under the aforementioned Act. There is no explanation available for the petitioner to have possession of such materials except that they were working as a labourer in the shop/ business of one Noor Mohammad, a co-accused who used to deal in explosive substance. In the opinion of this Court even if the defence taken by the petitioners though not with any sense of certainty and conviction in the bail application is accepted this Court would still find that there would be no justifiable reason for the 2 petitioners to have those materials in their personal possession, inasmuch as any person dealing explosive substance with the licence issued by the Collector of the district, the licensing authority, alone himself can transact such business. More over, here even the alleged owner Noor Mohammad who has also been made accused in this case and in that view of the matter, this Court would not find the petitioners entitled for grant of bail at this stage. Since the punishment for committing offence under the Act extends upto life imprisonment and the petitioners have remained in custody for a period of little more than seven months, this Court would direct the trial court to ensure that the trail of the petitioners is taken out of turn and is concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded in the aforementioned period solely on account of laches on the part of the prosecution, the petitioners will have the liberty initially to move the trial court which will record its reasons for not 3 concluding the trial, whereafter only the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail before this Court. With the aforementioned observations, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/