IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32616 of 2009 RAJENDRA PRAJAPATI, son of Chandrama Prajapati, resident of village- Badka Manjha, P. S. Mairwa, District- Siwan…. Petitioner. . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 5. 16.12.2009. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Verma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner facing prosecution for offence under Sections 302 and allied sections of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 27 of the Arms Act has his defence that the role ascribed to him of the main assailant in a mob of 250 persons by the informant was a near impossibility inasmuch as it would be difficult to identify the petitioner to be a member of mob much less to be a suitor killing the deceased. Mr. Verma expanding his submission has also gone to explain that as a matter of fact, the same version is under consideration before the court even by way of a complaint case wherein cognizance has been taken and therefore the counter-blast version should at least be accepted for the purposes of bail. Mr. Verma has also cited the reason of petitioner being Mukhiya to be a circumstance 2 in his favour for his being released on bail. In the opinion of this court, there being a direct allegation in the first information report against the petitioner gunning down the deceased coupled with the circumstance that the petitioner has got four other criminal cases pending against him as per the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police and the Proximity of the petitioner being well known in capacity of Mukhiya being implicated in this case can also be taken to be true on the basis of what the informant may have seen. The correctness of two versions; one the police case and the other complainant case giving counter-blast version is yet to be tested and therefore it would be wholly premature to discard the allegation of the prosecution for the purpose of bail. That being so, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner who is in custody since 17.2.2009. Nonetheless, since the petitioner has already remained in custody for a period of nearly 10 months this court would direct the trial court to ensure that the trial of the petitioner is taken up 3 on priority basis and is expedited so that the same is concluded within the completion of two years of judicial custody of the petitioner. If the trial of the petitioner would not be concluded within the aforementioned period, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail initially before the trial court which then would record its reasons for not concluding the trial and only thereafter the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this court. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)