IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43138 of 2009 HARENDRA SINGH YADAV son of Chabinath Singh, resident of Qtr. lNo. 141/1 Sector Military Camp Gaya, P.S. Magadh Medical College Hospital, District Gaya, … ..Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR… …OPPOSITE PARTY For the Petitioner: Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ----------- 3 03.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his wife, co-accused Sanjharo Devi, and Dharmendra Singh, had taken several lacs of rupees on the assurance of managing service in Railway. However, no service could be provided to the son of the informant. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that false allegation has been levelled upon the petitioner and a complaint case had been also filed by the wife of the petitioner, Sanjharo Devi, against the informant and others for taking away their money, which has subsequently been converted into a first information report bearing MMCH 2 P.S. Case No. 3 of 2009. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire story, as set up in the first information report, is highly improbable and false, as the informant himself is a retired Subedar and it is very difficult to assume that he will allow himself to be allured and deposit such heavy amount for the purpose of employment of his son. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 01.02.2009. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner along with his wife is indulged in swindling money and cheating persons by giving allurement of employment etc. and involved in illegal transaction of money. He also submitted that the petitioner and other co-accused persons are involved in swindling of money of other persons also, as would be manifest from the first information report itself. Learned counsel further submits that the prayer of bail of the co-accused Sanjharo Devi, who is wife of the petitioner and another co-accused Dharmendra Singh, had already been rejected by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.09.2009 in Cr. Misc. No. 28160 of 2009. The record of the aforesaid case has been placed before this Court. 3 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the allegation against the petitioner is of being involved in illegal transaction and swindling of money and also in view of the fact that the prayer for bail of the similarly situated co-accused persons had already been rejected by a Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 28160 of 2009 vide order dated 07.09.2009, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail made on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. However, since the trial court concerned had already been directed to take up the trial out of turn and conclude the same preferably within a period of one year by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.09.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28160 of 2009, this Court is also inclined to give direction that if trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period of one year the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)