IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42784 of 2009 PANKAJ YADAV son of Late Upendra Yadav, resident of village Patti Ratansar, Police Station Chhatapur, District Supaul. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 16/12/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner facing prosecution for the offence under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code while seeking bail has his defence that he was neither named in the First Information Report nor identified by any person, and his alleged complicity has emerged only at a subsequent stage by way of confessional statement of a co-accused before the police which is not admissible in the eye of law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in this regard also relies on the fact that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. The aforementioned submissions could have made some impact if the stolen goods recovered from the possession of the petitioner was not identified by the Informant. The confessional statement of the petitioner in fact, led to recovery of the stolen articles which was subject matter of dacoity, and the Informant has identified one of the items in the Test Identification Parade. The super technical approach of learned counsel for the petitioner 2 that since no identifying sign was revealed on such recovered article by the informant it would be difficult to say that the alleged identified article, being one of common use, actually belonged to the Informant and/or was subject matter of the alleged dacoity has to noted for its being rejected inasmuch as the nasal gold ring of the daily use of the wife of the informant was capable of being easily spotted on by the husband-informant. This Court would thus find that the petitioner’s implication is based on some valid materials and in fact when confession of co-accused is followed by recovery of certain materials which was identified by the Informant, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s implication in this case is without any substance. The petitioner is in custody since 29.5.2009 and therefore when the case in hand has already been committed to the Court of Sessions, all that this Court would do while rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner is that it would ensure that the petitioner has expeditious trial. The court below, the trial court, is hereby accordingly directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the trial of the petitioner is however not concluded within the aforementioned period of one year, the petitioner will have liberty initially to move the 3 trial court, which then would record reasons for not concluding the trial and only thereafter the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. With the aforesaid observations and directions the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)