IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3675 of 2009 SANJAY KUMAR SINGH @ SANJAY KUMAR @ PAPPU Son of Ramashish Mahto, resident of village Maalpur, P.S.Dalsingsarai,District Samastipur … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri Shakeel Ahmad Khan, Sr.Adv. For the State: Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP ----------- 2. 29.1.2009 Heard. The renewal prayer is on the ground that the petitioner could not have any motive for committing the offence because the petitioner being the cousin who was living separately from the family of the deceased and his father had no reason to kill him. The second ground for renewal was that the other accused being enlarged on bail, the petitioner is languishing in custody since 29.11.2006 and the charges could be framed by the learned trial Judge only on 17.7.2008 and no witness has been examined. It was contended that, in fact, after framing of the charges the Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court No.5, Samastipur, was transferred and the court lies vacant. A couple of orders 2 passed by different Benches of this Court, one of which was presided over by me, have been annexed as Annexure-5 series in support of the contention on admission to bail to different accused persons. I would have issued notices on cancellation of bail to the accused persons specially to those who were granted bail in Cr. Misc. No. 28918 of 2008 but considering that they have enjoyed the privilege for quite some time it would simply be against the principle of law to enter into the arena of the jurisdiction of the Court. One could not draw up the motive of an accused unless one could have the full facts before him and above all the accused could know better as to why he was motivated to participate in the commission of a particular offence. Many a time we have seen when many alien came together to commit offence and more deeply dealt with the same but I do not want to do that as that may cause prejudice to the trial of any of the accused. Considering the reasons assigned in the earlier order as may appear from 3 Annexure1, I am not inclined to direct the release of the petitioner at this stage. However, the trial has to be expedited and completed in nine months time, else, the trial court could release the petitioner on his furnishing a bond of the value and nature as was directed by me or by other Benches of this Court in different Cr. Misc. petitions to its satisfaction. It appears pertinent to direct the District and Sessions Judge, Samastipur, to immediately transfer the Sessions Trial No.444 of 2007, arising out of Dalsingsarai P.S.Case No.57 of 2006 from the vacant court of Fast Track Court No.5, if it is still vacant, to any other court which has the Presiding Officer substantially found to stay at the Station. In case any Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court No.5 has joined, this part has to be ignored. The petition is dismissed with the above direction/observation. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)