IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14237 of 2009 CHOTU MAHTO @ CHOTU KUMAR MAHTO SON OF SRI NARESH MAHTO, RESIDENT OF GHOGHA BAZAR, P.S. KAHALGAON, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- Cr.Misc. No.15518 of 2009 1.UMESH YADAV SON OF LATE KAILWAH YADAV 2.JHUNNA YADAV SON OF RAM SEWAK YADAV @ PARDESHI YADAV, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GHOGHA BAZAR, P.S. GHOGHA (Kahalgao)DISTRICT BHAGALPUR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- Cr.Misc. No.22700 of 2009 DIPAK CHOUDHARY @ NANU SON OF PRADIP CHOUDHARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GHOGHA BAZAR, P.S. KAHALGAON, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 27.10.2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State. The offence alleged is under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are not named accused, however, they have been implicated in this case on the confessional statement of the co-accused made before the police. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence, and as such, petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on perusal of the case diary submits that enough materials have been collected against the petitioners, which lead to the conclusion that these petitioners had participated in the alleged crime, as recorded during investigation in different paragraphs of the case diary. It is further submitted that sessions trial relating to the case have commenced and the trial is going on. In the above circumstances, petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions as also the materials which have been placed before the Court in course of submission by the learned Addl. P.P., I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Their prayer for bail is, accordingly, rejected. However, since the trial has begun and witnesses are being examined it is expected that the trial shall be concluded without delay. However, if the trial in question is not concluded within a period of eight months from today, the petitioners will be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)