IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.29714 of 2009 CHHOTAN YADAV @ SUNIL YADAV son of Sri Parmanand Yadav Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 7/ 18.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the petitioner is in custody since 1.12.2007 and the petitioner’s prayer for bail was earlier rejected on 6.1.2009 stating therein that it was being rejected at that stage. A report had been called for from the Magistrate about the stage of the case and it appears that even though cognizance was taken on 12.2.2008, the learned Magistrate in seisin of the case has not yet declared co-accused Bimal Yadav absconder even after the expiry of almost one year ten months. The learned Magistrate should try to understand that speedy justice is one of the inherent rights granted to a citizen and it does not make sense that even though the petitioner was in custody since 1.12.2007 and cognizance was taken on 12.2.2008, the court should have waited for indefinite period for the appearance of the co-accused and not commit the case for trial. Henceforth, the Magistrate receiving this order will be careful even though he is not directly involved for delay and has merely contributed to it. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the District & Sessions Judge, Patna, so that he can apply himself as to how under the given circumstances when one of the co-accused is not appearing the trial can be speeded up adhering to the procedure prescribed in the - 2 - Criminal Procedure Code. In my opinion, he should hold a meeting with the other judicial officers of the District to find out a way to solve this problem which is rampant. Under the circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri V. K. Srivastava, J. M. Ist Class, Danapur, Patna, in connection with Naubatpur P.S. case no. 105 of 2007 (G.R. No.1259 of 2007), subject to the conditions (i) that one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner, who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner, (ii) that the bailor shall also state on affidavit that he will inform the court concerned if the petitioner is implicated in any other case of similar nature after his release in the present case and thereafter the court below will be at liberty to initiate the proceeding for cancellation of bail on the ground of misuse, and (iii)that the petitioner will give an undertaking that he will receive the police papers on the given date and be present on date fixed for charge and if he fails to do so on two given dates and delays the trial in any manner, his bail will be liable to be cancelled for reasons of misuse. JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)