IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15854 of 2009 1. MANTOO YADAV, SON OF TEGA YADAV 2. BHAGWAN DAYAL CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE BANSI CHOUDHARY BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – BARUHA, P.S. BAGENGOLA, DISTT. BUXAR. ------ PETITIONERS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 12/10/2009 Petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and have been alleged to have committed offence who were initially charged with under Sections 147, 148, 149, 368 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 27 of the Arms Act but subsequently it emerges that a charge-sheet has been filed under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Submission of learned senior Counsel is that there is large number of cases which have been filed under various sections of the I.P.C. against each other and two petitioners are victim of such village politics and have nothing to do with the alleged crime. The counsel for the informant, however, submits that the case has been found to be true and therefore charge-sheet has been filed and even the trial of the case has begun. Looking at the history of these accused persons, they cannot be enlarged at this stage, which may jeopardise the trial, as even according to the investigation the father of the informant was kidnapped who is traceless till date because he was one of the prime witness and he had to give evidence in a case in the next couple of days. 2 Taking into consideration all the allegations as also the fact that the trial is on, enlarging the petitioner at this stage may jeopardise the trial if the trial is not completed in the next one year, the petitioners may approach this Court. S. Ali (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)