IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25404 of 2009 ALAUDDIN MIAN @ MD.ALAUDDIN @ ALAUDDIN Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 31.8.2009 Heard. The order passed by the learned trial Judge in Sessions Trial No.41 of 2006 does not indicate the reasons as to what for the trial has not been concluded and why he was refusing the prayer for bail. The contention is that the petitioner has already remained in custody since 27.2.2005. The court could understand that the learned trial Judge may have some other cases in which the other accused persons are in custody but one could also appreciate that keeping them in custody for four and half years when the trial is being not concluded will neither be wise nor just as regards the right of an accused to get the expeditious trial. At any rate, I direct the court below to conclude the trial in a further period of one year from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the present order, else to explain to this court as to why he could not do it. As regards the prayer for bail, the merit of the matter is already indicated in my earlier rejection order as contained in Annexure- 1 and, as such, the same is dismissed again. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )