IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.10823 of 2010 VIVEK KUMAR, SON OF SRI ASHOK KUMAR TIWARY @ TRIPATHI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.17139 of 2010 VIVEK KUMAR, SON OF ASHOK KUMAR TIWARY @ TRIPATHY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 28.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioner seek bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 307, 120(B), 449, 450, 452 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 302, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act respectively. Both the cases, i.e. Cr. Misc. 17139 of 2010 arising out of Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 377 of 2009 and Cr. Misc. 10823 corresponding to Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 417 of 2009 are being heard together since both the occurrences are inter related and have common accused persons. On 15.9.2009, one Shabbir Alam instituted a case against unknown persons of having attempted robbery in his house in course of which one co-accused was arrested and brutally assaulted. The said arrested person happened to be one Raju @ Ibrar. Subsequently, on 14.10.2009 wife of Shabbir Alam instituted a case against four accused persons of having committed the murder of her husband Md. Shabbir. When investigation ensued, it transpired that the wife of the deceased 2 was having love affairs with one Bimal Tripathi which was objected to by the deceased. However, the affair continued due to which the said Bimal hatched conspiracy by hiring the services of the petitioner Vivek Kumar who had come to him seeking a job. The petitioner in turn hired the services of Raju @ Ibrar who had been caught by the Public on 15.9.2009 and one Dinesh who was subsequently caught. When the attempt of 15.9.2009 was aborted for some reason, on 14.10.2009, another set of hired criminals namely Shibu and Mantu committed the murder of Shabbir Alam. Since during investigation, it has transpired that the petitioner was one of the active participants in getting the murder of Shabbir Alam, executed, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial. In case there is undue delay in conclusion of the same for reasons not attributable to the petitioner, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)