IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9061 of 2011 PRITAM KUMAR @ AVINASH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02 29.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Although, petitioner is not named in the first information report but the impugned order reveals that he was put on Test Identification Parade and he was identified by the witnesses. Apart from the aforesaid fact, the petitioner also carries some criminal antecedent. Taking into consideration the above stated facts and circumstances, I do not feel it proper to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Piro P.S. Case No. 88 of 2010 stands rejected. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same preferably within nine months from the date of receipt of this order and if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the above stated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. Shahzad ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)