IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5582 of 2011 MAHENDRA SINGH. s/o Late Maharaj Singh, R/o Village-Rampur, P.O. Bhanpur, P.S.-Dinara, District- Rohtas… ….Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR…. ….Opposite Party ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey & Indu Bala Pandey, Advocates For the State : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh I, A.P.P. ……… 3. 27.4.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. I have also perused the report, kept at flag-‘A’. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner’s prayer for bail had earlier been rejected vide order dated 30.10.2009 passed in Criminal Misc. No.15025 of 2009 (Annexure-‘1’ to this application). It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there was no motive or intention to kill the deceased and the occurrence took place on account of sudden outburst and in spur of moment as there was scuffle between the parties on account of the dispute regarding the irrigation of land. 2 However, learned counsel for the State submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of pressing and throttling the neck of the deceased causing his death which is also supported by the post-mortem report. The prayer for bail of the petitioner had earlier been rejected on merit and no fresh ground could be set forth by the petitioner for grant of bail. As a result, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is again rejected. This application stands dismissed accordingly. However, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is in custody since 22.9.2008 and from the report of the trial court, it appears that only one witness has been examined out of ten witnesses referred in the charge sheet. In above view of the matter, it is expected from the trial court to take every possible steps for the expeditious disposal of the trial, preferably, within six months from the date of this order as the petitioner has remained in custody for more than 2 and half years. It is also expected from the Senior Superintendent of Police of the concerned District also that he would take steps so that the witnesses are produced on 3 the date fixed by the trial court. If the trial is not concluded within the period of six months, the petitioner, if so advised, would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. Let the copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State for necessary communication. Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)