IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20198 of 2011 Rit Lal Yadav, S/O-Ramashish Yadav Versus The State Of Bihar ----------- 06 02.08.2011 Supplementary affidavit is filed on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant. Petitioner is languishing in jail custody since 01.10.2010 in a case registered under Section 302 and other minor Sections of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. It would appear from the impugned order that petitioner was earlier granted bail vide order dated 07.04.2005 but his bail bond was cancelled on 07.08.2007 as he did not appear in person before the court and subsequently, he could be remanded in this case on 01.10.2010. It would appear from the impugned order that the learned court below has rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that while he was absconding he committed the murder of a witness of this case for which Bihta P.S. Case No. 280 of 2009 was registered. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in Bihta P.S. Case No. 280 of 2009 one Sanjay Kumar Singh was killed and the aforesaid Sanjay Kumar Singh was not a witness of the charge sheet of the present case and moreover, petitioner has already 2 been granted privilege of bail by this Court vide order dated 04.05.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 11175 of 2011 in Bihta P.S. Case No. 280 of 2009. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted that deceased Sanjay Kumar Singh was a witness in the first information report of the present case and he had sustained fire arm injury in the present case. It is pointed out by him that his statement has been recorded by the concerned Investigating Officer in present case at Para-99 of the case diary but he has not been shown as a witness of charge sheet reasons best known to the concerned Investigating Officer. It is also pointed out by him that at the time of consideration of bail of the petitioner in Bihta P.S. Case No. 280 of 2009, the above stated fact was cleverly suppressed by the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, I do not feel it proper to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2006 arising out of Danapur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2003 pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II, Danapur, Patna stands rejected. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same as early as possible. SHAHZAD ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)