IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.27660 of 2009 Ram Janam Yadav, Son of Late Chanarik Yadav, Resident of Village Janpur, P.S. Sigori, District Patna. ---- Petitioner Versus State of Bihar ------ Opp. Party ----------- 3 01.04.2010 Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. There is always a hope in theory but in practice it has to enforced on ground realities. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on two earlier occasions vide order dated 14.5.2008 in Cr. Misc. No. 8382 of 2008 and again another order dated 22.10.2008 in Cr. Misc. No. 42369 of 2008. The first order was a reasoned order on merits and the second order had recorded that there was no new material to take a different view. Inspite of such clear observations in the aforesaid order Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner has still submitted that the petitioner can never be said to be absconding in the period 4.4.2002 to 28.4.2007 inasmuch as even though the 2 petitioner was named in the First Information Report, he was never required to surrender because the police was investigating the matter. Thereafter, since, the police had submitted a final form and such final form led to a revision at the instance of the informant in which the matter ultimately came to a finality only after the order of this Court, the petitioner cannot be said to be absconder for the period 4.4.2002 to 28.4.2007, inasmuch as, cognizance was taken only on 28.4.2007. Mr. Sinha, has also submitted that since the petitioner had surrendered on 31.10.2007, it must be presumed that the whole period from April 2002 to October, 2007 stands well explained. That may be the impression of Mr. Sinha but the law requires any law abiding citizen to surrender if he has been named in the First Information Report in respect of cognizable offence as early as possible. That being so, the entire calculation of calendar as given by Mr. Sinha would hardly be to the benefit of the petitioner. The next submission of Mr. Sinha that 3 another accused has already been released on bail is not a new material, inasmuch as, such co-accused was already on bail when the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by this Court. As a matter of fact, this Court had called for a report from the trial court to ascertain the present stage of trial of the petitioner and from the same it appears that on 12.12.2008, charges has been already framed against all the five accused persons including the petitioner and thereafter since the case was transferred from one trial court to the another, the trial could not be taken up but the present trial court has reported that the trial of the petitioner will be concluded within a period of one year. Such report being dated 15th October, 2009, the period of one year would expire on 15th October, 2010 and accordingly, while rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner once again, this Court would direct the trial court in seisin of the case to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and submit its report 4 thereafter to this court. With the aforesaid observations and directions this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)