IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35040 of 2009 CHUNI YADAV @ CHUNNI YADAV, son of late Hiru Yadav, resident of village- Devkal, P. S. Banka, District- Banka….. Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.31949 of 2009 1. MUNI YADAV son of late Hiru Yadav, 2. Kuli Yadav son of Late Hiru Yadav, Both resident of village- Debkal, P. S. Banka, District- Banka…. Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 27.11.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioners in both these cases, counsel for the State as also counsel for the informant. The three petitioners of these bail applications are facing allegation for offence under Sections364,302,201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and their main plea is that not only the informant is hearsay witness but also their implication has emerged on account of confession of co-accused Ayub Ansari. It is also submitted that on almost identical allegation co-accused Pradip, son of petitioner, Kuli Yadav has already been released on bail by order of this court dated 21.8.2009 in Cr. Misc. No. 20336 of 2009. Counsel for the informant on the other hand would submit that not only there 2 was confessional statement of co-accused ascribing special role to these petitioners as well in the offence alleged but there is also recovery of weapon from the house of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the informant would also submit that trial had already commenced and three out of 12 charge- sheeted witnesses had already been examined. In the opinion of this court, when on an identical allegation Pradip Yadav, son of petitioner, Kuli Yadav has been directed to be released on bail, the only distinguishing feature for the petitioners would be their criminal antecedent. As it is now an admitted fact that alike Pradip Yadav, the petitioner Muni Yadav does not have any criminal antecedent as alleged in his case, this court must follow the earlier order as with regard to grant of bail in the case of Pradip Yadav. Consequently, petitioner, Muni Yadav is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of CJM, Banka in connection with Banka P. S. Case No. 537 of 2008. 3 Reverting back to the case of rest of the petitioners, Chuni Yadav @ Chunni Yadav and Kuli Yadav, as they had criminal antecedent and the trial had already commenced this court without making any comment on the value of the confessional statement, would direct the court below to expedite the trial and to ensure that the same comes to an end within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of this order. If the trial of these two petitioners is not concluded within the aforementioned period, they will have a liberty to initially move the trial court for bail and the trial court will be under obligation to give reasons for not concluding the trial within the aforementioned period. Only thereafter, the petitioners may move this court with a prayer for bail. Consequently, the prayer for bail of petitioners, Chuni @ Chunni Yadav and Kuli Yadav is hereby rejected. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)