IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.4848 of 2008 RAMU NUT Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 7.5.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. representing the State. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been identified by the Informant and this case relates to offence under Section 395/397 of the Indian Penal Code, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and in fact he has been framed by the Informant on account of some altercation which had taken place in the cinema hall. He has further submitted that the petitioner is a student and has no role to play in the same. This Court, on finding that the petitioner has been identified by the Informant in a natural course and that there is nothing on record to prove that any altercation with the informant in the cinema hall had led to his false identification, is not satisfied with the aforementioned submission of the counsel for the petitioner. That apart, the plea of not holding Test Identification Parade or refusal of the Informant to participate in the Test Identification Parade in my view has got no meaning because once the 2 petitioner was already identified by the Informant and on the basis of which he was arrested, no useful purpose could have been served by putting the petitioner on Test Identification Parade for confirmation of identification by the informant. Thus there is no merit in this case and accordingly, the prayer for bail on behalf of the petitioner Ramu Nut is hereby rejected at this stage. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year from today. If the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the petitioner will initially move the Trial Court and the Trial Court will have to disclose the reason for not concluding the trial in the said period and only thereafter, the petitioner may move this Court. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)