IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.51879 of 2008 Ramjee Sharma, Son of Baldeo Sharma, Resident of Village Puran, P.S. Karpi, District Arwal. --------- Petitioner Versus State of Bihar ---------- Opp. Party ----------- 4 3.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner, facing prosecution with 21 others named in the First Information Report for offence under Sections 302 and allied offences of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act as also Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, has his defence that when on identical allegation not only the bail but also trial has been concluded acquitting co-accused, the petitioner would also be entitled for bail. This Court would find that it was a case of the year 2002 and the petitioner could be ultimately nabbed/arrested only after he was declared absconder and since then he is in custody awaiting the completion of trial which had to be segregated on account of the petitioner remaining absconding. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also not in a position to inform this Court as with regard 2 to the criminal antecedent of the petitioner. This Court would find that in a systematic manner, the co-accused had planned to get the trial segregated and concluded and some of them remaining inside the jail and others putting pressure from outside. That is how, the accused Atal Sharma, who having surrendered/arrested in the year 2002, got his bail after rejection of his four applications by an order dated 23.8.2005 i.e. after remaining in jail for a period of more than two and a half years. The bail of the co- accused Shivjee Sharma in fact was never allowed, inasmuch as, the same was rejected by this Court by an order dated 24.8.2006. Therefore, if the aforementioned co-accused Atal Sharma and Shivjee Sharma could get their acquittal on 23.9.2006, the idea of the petitioner for surrendering in the year 2008 with a calculated aim to take advantage of the order of acquittal would only go to show as to how in a systematic manner the prosecution today is being made to suffer on account of absconding of the named persons in the First Information Report. A poor nation like India 3 can hardly afford trial in installment and if the petitioner had remained absconding for all these period of more than six years, he does not deserve to be released on bail till his trial would be completed. That being so, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Ramjee Sharma is hereby rejected with a direction to the trial court to ensure that the trial of the petitioner is taken up and concluded expeditiously. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)