IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.24850 OF 2009 BHOLA YADAV, SON OF LATE NAGINA YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DOST MOHAMMADPUR, P.S. FATUWAH, DISTRICT PATNA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 29.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. The case is under section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The first information report was instituted by maternal uncle of the deceased raising suspicion against father of the deceased. However, it appears that later on, the informant filed petitions before the Human Rights Commission and other authorities on 19.06.2007 onwards alleging that on the farbeyan, the Investigating Officer had taken signature of the informant without reading it out to him in which false suspicion was raised against the father of the deceased. In the petition before the Human Rights Commission and other authorities, the informant claimed that as per his information, deceased was murdered by one Ranjan Yadav, this petitioner and others on account of land dispute with the informant. - 2 - Several paragraphs of the case diary have been extensively read by all the learned counsels placing materials in their favour. From the documents it appears that a protest was made by the informant with regard to conduct of the Investigating officer and in view of his protest, Investigating Officer was changed on 9.11.2007. Thereafter statements of the witnesses have been recorded and a number of witnesses have disclosed complicity of the said Ranjan Yadav, this petitioner and other accused persons in the crime. Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that said Ranjan Yadav was seen running away with blood on all over his body and other witnesses have said that this petitioner and other accused persons were also accompanying said Ranjan Yadav. It appears that sufficient materials have come during course of investigation after the Investigating Officer was changed. Considering the materials which have been collected during the investigation, this Court is not inclined to allow the application of the petitioner at this stage. Therefore, the - 3 - application is dismissed. The trial court is directed to expedite trial of the case and conclude the same within one year. If the trial is not concluded within one year, for no fault of the accused persons, petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. B.T (J.N. Singh, J.)