IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42782 of 2009 Barna Yadav @ Rambaran Yadav, Son of Shri Ratan Yadav, Resident of Village English, P.S. Sabour, District Bhagalpur. ------- Petitioner Versus State of Bihar ------ Opp. Party ----------- 2 16.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The petitioner, facing prosecution for an offence under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, has his defence that there is only an omnibus allegation against him and that co- accused Manoj Yadav having graver allegation, has been released on bail by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner in fact would expand his submission by submitting that even in the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nothing has come against the petitioner. Ordinarily, this Court could have granted bail to the petitioner under the aforementioned circumstances but then what would really come in the way of the petitioner is that he has successfully absconded for a period of nearly twelve years. The First Information Report was lodged in the year 1997 2 and the petitioner has surrendered only in the year 2009. The explanation given by the learned counsel for the petitioner had no knowledge of his being made accused on account of wrong name mentioned in the First Information Report and that the petitioner was in exile at Delhi for the period of 11-12 years, is only to be noted for its being rejected. The very fact that the petitioner with the same name has ultimately been able to locate himself to be the accused in this case and has surrendered in the year 2009, he could have done so earlier specially when the police had submitted charge-sheet against him in the year 2000 declaring him as an absconder. Thus for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner would not be entitled for being released on bail and accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner, namely, Barna Yadav @ Rambaran Yadav is hereby rejected with a direction to the trial court to ensure that the trial of the petitioner is expedited and concluded preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 3 In the event the trial of the petitioner will not be concluded within the aforementioned period, the petitioner shall have liberty initially to move the trial court which then would record its reason for not concluding the trial whereafter only, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)