IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.644 of 2010 VINAY SHARMA . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 3/ 17.03.2010 Heard Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Nirbhay Kumar Singh, learned Addl. P.P. for the State. Petitioner is accused in a case instituted under section 302 and some other allied sections of the Penal Code as also under section 27 of the Arms Act. According to the F.I.R. (Annexure-1) petitioner along with co-accused Brajesh Sharma and Praveen Sharma are said to have fired at the deceased, namely, Rajnandan Prasad, as a result of which he died. Some other accused persons also are said to have fired upon the informant, causing injury to him. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that co-accused Praveen Sharma has not been sent up for trial as accusation against him has been found to be false and further co-accused Brajesh Sharma has been granted bail, though copy of the said order has not been produced before this Court. Unfortunately, this case was instituted in the year 1998 and petitioner remained absconding for more than ten years. He is in judicial custody since 28.08.2009 only and, therefore, the trial of the present case has not progressed. It appears that the case is still pending in the court of C.J.M., Jehanabad. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not - 2 - persuaded to accede to the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail is presently rejected. Learned C.J.M., Jehanabad is directed to commit the case to the court of Sessions immediately on receipt/ production of a copy of this order and on such commitment learned Sessions Judge, Jehanabad shall ensure that the trial of the present case be taken up at an early date. All efforts should be made 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. However, if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within a period of one year, without being any fault on the part of the petitioner, then in that case he shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail before this Court. Let this order be communicated through fax at the cost of the petitioner. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J ) BTiwary/