IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23602 of 2010 RAJENDRA YADAV son of Aklu Yadav, resident of village- Jakhura Toley Sajivan Bigha PS- Haspura District- Aurangabad (Bihar)…. Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 11.10.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also taking into account the direct allegation against the petitioner of causing stab injury on the injured (informant) which is fully substantiated from his injury report as noted in the impugned order passed by the court below, reading as follows;- "(I) Stab Wound 2”x1”x 1 ½ in frong of left Axilla (II) Incised would 4” x ½ x ½ from injury no. I to middle of left clavicle. (III) Stab wound 2” x 1” x 1 ½ left side of neck. (IV) Incised would 2” x ½ x 1/8” from injury no. 1 to angle of left mandible. Injury No. 1 and III have been opined to be dangerous caused by sharp substance.” this Court would not be inclined to grant bail to the petitioner either on the ground that at one point of time in the supervision note, an opinion was expressed by the Supervising Officer that the petitioner has been made accused in this case on account of enmity and that the 2 aforementioned occurrence was given shape only by Domani Yadav . In fact such tentative opinion of the Supervising Officer was later on not found to be correct in well considered reasons discussed in paragraph 57 of the case-diary wherein cogent circumstances have been given for differing with such opinion. All said and done, the version of the informant, who is also injured having been fully substantiated from his injury report as noted above, it would be difficult for this Court at this stage to rely on the tentative opinion earlier expressed by the Supervising Officer which also was later on found to be incorrect. The prayer for bail of the petitioner Rajendra Yadav is accordingly rejected. Since the petitioner is in jail since 15.4.2010 this Court would direct the trial court to take up the trial on priority basis and if such trial of the petitioner is not taken up within a period of one year from today, he will have liberty to initially move the trial court which then would record reasons for not commencing the trial within the aforementioned period of one year, whereafter only the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. 3 With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is dismissed. kanchan/- ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)