BLAPL No. 2009 of 2015 21.7.2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioners in connection with Jharabandha P.S. Case No. 115 of 2014 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 600 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned SDJM, Padampur for alleged commission of offences under Sections 302/201/34 of IPC. The petitioners moved an application for bail before the learned Additional Sessions J udge, Padampur which was rejected on 4.2.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody since 11.11.2014 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted under Sectio ns 302/201/34 of IPC. He further submits that though the occurrence is stated to have taken place on 7.11.2014 and it is alleged by the eye witness to the occurrence namely Kartik Bisoi that he saw the occurrence but he did not disclose about the incident before anybody and ev en though on 10.11.2014, F.I.R. was lodged by one Ram Singh Kumbhar who is none else but the son-in-law of the deceased but the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown culprits. He further subm its that the statement of Kartik Bisoi has been created at a belated stage to falsely implicate the petitioner in the crime. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand produced the case diary and placed the statement of the eye witness Kartik Bisoi who is alleged to have seen the assault by the two petitioners by means of spilt wood. Learned counsel for the State also placed the post mortem report which indicates that the cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage due to assault on the vital organ of the body i.e. the brain. He further placed the statement of Sanjay Mohak ud who had seen the petitioner no.2 Kunu Pradhan purchasing petrol on 8.11.2014. He further pl aced the statement of Bimala Kumbhar which indicates that prior to the incident, the petitione rs had threatened the deceased. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the burnt p ortion of the dead body of the deceased was recovered at the instance of petitioner no.1 namel y Dusasan Bhue@ Baba. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, ev en though there is delayed disclosure made by the eye witness Kartik Bisoi but the same has to be adjudicated at the time of trial and taking into account other materials available on rec ord and particularly the statement of the eye witness and nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for bail stands rejected. The BLAPL is accordingly dismissed. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case has been commited to the court of session and now it is pending in the court of learned Additional Sess ions Judge, Padampur in C.T. Case No. 16 of 2015 and the petitioners are in custody since 11. 11.2014 and the trial has not progressed much and he prays for expeditious hearing of the case by the learned trial court. Considering the period of detention of the petitioners, the learned trial court is dir ected to expedite the trial and if possible, to conclude the trial within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. A copy of the order be sent to the learned trial Court for compliance. S.K.Sahoo, J. 4 4