IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13475 of 2008 DHARAM NATH RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 5. 31.7.2008 Heard. The case is under sections 302, 386 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. The story is of seeking payment of extortion money and on not getting the same, the accused persons with arms reached the brick-kiln of the informant and threatened to pay or to be killed. The allegation is that this petitioner and accused Guddu Rai fired shots from their A.K-47 and some other automatic weapons as a result of which the father of the informant was killed. The contention of the defence is that the petitioner was not sent up initially by the police at the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, but subsequently I.G. , Muzaffarpur, ordered for submission of the chargesheet and this Court also directed the arrest of the petitioner in a criminal writ petition. It is contended that police arrested the petitioner and he is, thus, in custody. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that accused Gautam Rai was admitted to bail by this Court but he has absconded and it is a herculean task of the police to bring him to justice. It is contended that petitioner inspite of having participated in the offence, could not be brought to justice on account of many reasons and if he is directed to be released from custody, it will be difficult for the trial court to get him before it for concluding trial. 2 It is really a matter of surprise and concern for this Court that an accused who was granted bail by this Court, as per submission, namely , Gautam has absconded and the police is not enforcing process issued by Court against him. The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, should ensure that accused Gautam Rai is brought to justice by being arrested and produced before the court. The circumstances which have been pointed out on account of abscondence of the co-accused after getting bail and other circumstances by way of attempting to get away from justice inspite of bearing an allegation of participation in the offence does not permit me to direct release of the petitioner, but the present order of refusal is always with a rider that the trial is to be concluded within five months from the day of receipt/production of the copy of this order. The counsel for the informant has appeared and the Court trusts that all witnesses should be produced and the trial of the petitioner even after being separated, be concluded by taking up the hearing of the witnesses on day to day basis. The petition is dimissed with the above observation. Sudip (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)