IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39183 of 2009 SHATRUGHAN RAI, son of late Ram Narayan Rai, resident of village Naga Tola, Goraiya Asthan, P.S. Maner, District Patna Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 2.4.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer for bail of the petitioner for offence u/s 386, 326 and 307 I.P.C. and u/s 27 Arms Act was earlier rejected this Court on merit by an order dated 10.9.2008. A liberty was however given to the petitioner by the aforesaid order to renew his prayer for bail after completing one further year of custody from the date of the order i.e. after 10.9.2009 initially before the trial court and in case of rejection by the trial court before this Court. The trial court has however recorded in its order dated 6.10.2009 while rejecting the prayer for bail of the petitioner that the charges have already been framed against the petitioner and the trial was being awaited for examination of witnesses. The trial court has also noted the urgency of the purpose in the light of 2 the observation made by this Court in its order dated 10.9.2008 and in this regard it has made clear in the impugned order that non-bailable warrant of arrest has already been issued against the non-appearing witnesses. That apart the trial court has also gone into the aspect of the criminal antecedent of the petitioner. In this connection it has to be noted that this Court also on the earlier occasion had rejected the bail of the petitioner by taking into account his chequered criminal antecedent. Counsel for the petitioner, however, would point out that there was a factual error in the order of this court dated 10.9.2008 wherein it was recorded that the petitioner was holding carbine in his hand, whereas such carbine as per F.I.R. was actually alleged to be in the hands of one Kariya Rai. Be that as it may, the criminal antecedent of the petitioner as noted by this Court earlier as also by the trial court in the impugned order is itself good enough for rejection of the bail of the 3 Surendra/ petitioner. The trial court, however, should not sit idle by issuing only the warrant of arrest against the non-appearing witnesses but also must ensure that the service of warrant of arrest is effected by the police. The trial court infact must make all its endeavors to conclude the trial within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)