IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19818 of 2010 MANOJ SINGH KUSHWAHA Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 06.10.2010 Heard the parties. In a criminal prosecution registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code with respect to the train dacoity, the F.I.R. was lodged against 9-10 unknown miscreants. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in F.I.R. as an accused and he has not been put on T.I.P. and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 07.03.2010. According to the prosecution case while the informant alongwith his wife was returning from Delhi by a train, the miscreants looted the passengers including the informant and on protest some of the passengers were also assaulted causing injury to them. Name of the petitioner has transpired during the course of investigation. Learned counsel for the State has rightly pointed out that there are at least two other criminal cases of dacoity/robbery pending against him. In view of the fact that this is a case of train 2 dacoity and the petitioner is an accused in some other criminal cases also, the prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner in connection with Darbhanga (Sitamarhi G.R.P.) P.S. Case No. 63 of 2009 is rejected for the present. The learned Magistrate is directed to commit the case of the petitioner forthwith and on such commitment learned trial Court shall make all endeavour to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of one year. However, if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within one year from the date of commitment, the petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail thereafter. M.Rahman/Shahzad ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )