IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42229 of 2009 LALIT PANDEY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2 4.12.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner, the informant and the State. The petitioner faces allegation for committing offence under section/34 of the I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act. The defence of the petitioner is that no one had seen the petitioner committing the crime and the mere suspicion of the informant alleging the petitioner to have run away with three others after committing the offence would not be sufficient for making him the main assailant so as to deprive bail by this Court. This Court would find that the informant had only given the version of the part of the occurrence that he had seen. He has clearly stated that the petitioner was one who was found to have run away immediately after the deceased was done to death. The petitioner has got also criminal antecedent a fact which was conveniently suppressed by him in the bail application. In that view of the matter, this court, taking into account that he has remained in custody only for a period of less than six months, is not inclined to grant him bail for the present. If however the trial of the petitioner is not concluded in next 1½ years he may renew his prayer for bail initially before the trial court which would record its reason for not concluding the 2 trial whereafter only he may renew his prayer for bail before this Court . Anilkrsinha (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)