IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40398 of 2010 DHARMENDRA MAHTO @ BANSHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/- 21-12-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Petitioner, namely, Dharmendra Mahto @ Bansha seeks his bail in connection with Mushari P.S. Case No. 19 of 2010 registered under Sections 395, 412 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 (1-B) A, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not been arrested at the spot and his name surfaced in this case in confessional statement of co-accused Sushil Singh. He further submitted that so far as the alleged recovery is concerned, the same is nothing, but only the high handedness of the police. The impugned order of learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur reveals that some looted articles have been recovered from possession of the petitioner. Therefore, considering the nature of offence as well as the above stated recovery, I do not feel it proper to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner, accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same preferably within a period of nine months. It is made clear that if the case of the petitioner has not been committed to the Court of Sessions as yet, the learned Chief - 2 - Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur shall take all possible steps for committing the case of the petitioner to the Court of Sessions and the aforesaid period of nine months shall commenced after the date of commitment. It is also made clear that if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within the above stated period, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. Praveen/- ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. )