IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47730 of 2008 SUJIT KUMAR @ DEVANAND Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 16.12.2008 Heard. The petitioner is permitted to make correction in paragraph 4 of the bail petition. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted under sections 420,419,467,468,471 and 120B IPC. It appears that the petitioner has earlier moved this Court on few occasions. Counsel for the petitioner, in this connection, refers to the order placed at Annexure-1. This Court while disposing of the said bail application (cr.misc.no.23265 of 2007) under order dated 11.9.2007 observed thus: “Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the orders dated 25.5.2007 and 10.7.2007 and the report of the trial court dated 5.6.2007 and submitted that the case has still not been concluded. He again reiterated that the other co-accused of this case with similar allegation has been released on bail. The prayer of the petitioner has been rejected on merit on 3.5.2006 and considering nature of the offence, I still do not feel inclined to release the petitioner on bail. His prayer for bail is again rejected. The petitioner, however, may renew his prayer after six months if the trial is not concluded within the said period.” Subsequently, he again moved this Court in Cr.Misc. No.12230 of 2008 which was disposed of under order dated 14.5.2008 which runs thus: “Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected thrice earlier but - 2 - from the report of the trial court it does not appear that the case of the petitioner is likely to be disposed of in near future and the case is under section 420 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code which is triable by a court of the Magistrate. Considering the nature of the offence and merit of the case, I do not find any fresh ground to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner. His prayer for bail is accordingly rejected again. So far as the delay in disposal of the case is concerned, from the report of the trial court it appears that five witnesses are still to be examined. I do not think that simply issuance of process are enough to justify the delay. The court must take effective steps for procuring attendance of the witnesses. The trial court is again directed to get all the witnesses examined within next six months. Getting report from the handwriting expert may take some time but I do not think that there should be delay in examining the witnesses, who are local witnesses in the case.” Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case has not yet been concluded. In this connection, he refers to the averments made in paragraph 4 of the present bail application which runs thus: “That after the aforesaid direction, the case was fixed on 12.5.08. Since then on 12.5.08, 21.5.08, 2.6.08, 10.6.08, 12.6.08, 21.6.08, 2.7.08, 8.7.08,23.7.08, 5.8.08, 18.8.08, 29.8.08, 11.9.08, 3.10.08, 16.10.08 and 23.10.08 and though three witnesses were examined during this period upto 6.11.08, still on several dates witnesses were not in attendance and in a case triable by a Magistrate the petitioner is rotting in jail since 23.9.05. Hence, this application renewing the prayer for bail. The petitioner craves leave of this court to produce the entire order sheet of the trial court of G.R.No.861/2005 at the time of hearing of this case.” It has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 23.9.2005. Having considered the matter thoughtfully and keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner has remained in custody for a pretty long time as also keeping in view the fact that on several occasions in past his application for bail came to be rejected by this Court, this Court, for the present, is not inclined to admit the petitioner to bail. - 3 - The trial court is directed to conclude the trial by concluding the evidence to be examined on behalf of the prosecution by 31st of January,2009, failing which, the trial court shall release the petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial court (Sri Lal Bahadur, Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda) in Ekangarsarai p.s.case no.215/2005, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to appear on each and every date fixed in the trial, failing which, the trial court shall be at liberty to take all steps in accordance with law. With this directions/observations, this application stands disposed of. Let this orders be communicated to the court below through the fax, the cost of which, shall be deposited by the petitioner. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )