IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35695 of 2009 Paswan Mandal, S/o- Laxmi Mandal, Resident of Vill- Bhatauni, P.S- Puraini, Distt- Madhepura. ------- Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar -------- Opp. Party ----------- 3 15.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as also counsel for the informant. The petitioner, facing prosecution for an offence under Sections 302/120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, has his defence that not only he was not named in the First Information Report but even when he was the co-villager of the informant, he was not named as one of the assailants of the father of the informant. Mr. N.K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would point out that apart from the fact that both the informant and the petitioner are co- villagers, the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing to that of the other co-accused persons, namely, Vigyan Mehta, Vikky @ Vikash Mehta and Nuri Mandal whose bail applications have been rejected by 2 this Court. Learned counsel for the State as also that of informant on the other hand with the help of material available in the case diary would submit that it has been clearly found that the father of the informant, a Mukhiya, was done to death in a well planned and systematic manner and that there are materials to show that three gangs on three motorcycles had blocked the attempt of exit of the Mukhiya which became the turning point for committing the occurrence. It was in this way that on one motorcycle, this petitioner was doing the work of surveillance and on the other side, the co- accused Vigyan Mehta and Vikky @ Bikash Mehta along with another person were also doing the same job. In such a situation, when the life of Mukhiya, the father of the informant, was taken away in a premeditated manner, the petitioner, even though not being the main assailant, would be equally responsible for the conspiracy part, an aspect which has been found to be fully substantiated in course of investigation by the police. That apart, when this Court has rejected 3 bail of all such unnamed persons in the First Information Report, about whom materials were found in the Case Diary including that of aforesaid Nuri Mandal, Vigyan Mehta and Vikky @ Bikash Mehta, this Court also must reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner for the present. In view of the fact that this Court in the case of Nuri Mandal @ Noor Mandal by an order dated 31.8.2009 in Cr. Misc. No. 23330 of 2009 has given liberty to him to move again for bail in case the trial was not completed within a period of eight months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order dated 31.8.2009, this Court would also give similar liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after completing eight months of his further judicial custody from today. At the same time, since almost all the accused persons are already in custody, it would be augur well for the administration of justice that the court below should take up the trial of the petitioner on an expeditious basis and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months from the date of 4 receipt/production of a copy of this order. This direction for expeditious trial is also being given on an assurance being given by Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned counsel for the informant that the prosecution as with regard to private witnesses to be produced by the informant will not be withheld and would be produced on day-to-day basis. If the trial of the petitioner would not be completed in the aforementioned period, the petitioner will have liberty initially to move the trial court again for bail which then would record reasons for not concluding the trial and only thereafter, the petitioner will renew his prayer for bail to this Court. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)