IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.36068 of 2009 SURESH MAHTO S/O CHAMARI MAHTO VILL- SIKANDARPUR, P.S- BARH, DISTT- PATNA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 30.10.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner, a named accused in the F.I.R. for an offence u/s 379 I.P.C. and to be main facilitator by unbinding the electric motor, the subject matter of theft, has remained absconding from 14.4.2007 to 18.1.2009 and now has appeared before this Court after rejection of the bail application by the court below by taking a plea that no recovery of motor in question was made from his conscious possession. Normally in a case u/s 379 I.P.C. the period of jail custody already undergone by the petitioner was sufficient for his being released on bail, but there are two difficulties for this Court for directing him to be released on bail at present, namely, (i) The petitioner despite being named in the F.I.R. has remained absconding for almost 20 months before surrendering in the court below on 2 18.1.2009, (ii) The son of the petitioner had threatened the informant of this case and in fact had made an attempt on his life for compelling him to withdraw this case for which another case being Barh P.S.Case No. 11/2009 has been registered on 10.1.2009. That would mean that the petitioner was somehow instrumental in also tampering with the evidence of the prosecution before his surrendering on 18.1.2009. It is for these two reasons that this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. His prayer for bail, therefore, is rejected at this stage and he may renew his prayer for bail only after completing 1½ years of his judicial custody before the trial court while the trial court on its part must make its all endeavours to conclude the trial itself in the aforesaid period of judicial custody of the petitioner. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/