IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42820 of 2009 RAKESH KUMAR, son of Naresh Chandra Singh, resident of Punadih, P.S. Didarganj, District Patna Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 16.12.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner faces prosecution for offence u/s 392 I.P.C. and his defence for the purpose of bail is that neither he was named in the F.I.R. nor any recovery has been made from his conscious possession and that even when he was identified by the informant in the Test Identification Parade alongwith the co-accused Nitesh Kumar the latter has already been released on bail by the court below itself. Counsel for the petitioner in fact has also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 14.12.2007 and the charges against him also have been framed on 24.6.2008 but not a single witness has been produced thereafter and therefore, the petitioner now in custody for a period of two years approximately would be entitled for grant of bail. This Court would find that the 2 petitioner faces a direct allegation of being main person in the alleged offence who had dashed the motorcycle of the informant, as a result whereof his accomplice had taken away the amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the possession of the informant. This role has been again reiterated by way of identification of the petitioner in course of Test Identification Parade by the informant himself. That apart the petitioner has also not revealed his criminal antecedent which would only go to show that the petitioner either deliberately or otherwise does not want to let this Court know about his past. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner only because the co-accused Nitesh Kumar has been granted bail, inasmuch as the allegation primarily of dashing the motorcycle and thus, the main person behind the occurrence remains confined against the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner is in custody for almost two years now and therefore, this Court would direct the court 3 below to take all possible steps so that the trial of the petitioner is concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If the trial of the petitioner is not concluded in the aforementioned period only on account of some deliberate laches on the part of the prosecution, the petitioner will have the liberty initially to move the trial court which then would record its reasons for not concluding the trial, whereafter the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/