IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.7614 of 2008 RAMAYAN YADAV & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ********** 3 14.05.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. representing the State. This is an application for bail on behalf of the two petitioners, namely, Ramayan Yadav and Nanhu Yadav who are facing prosecution for committing offences under Sections 307, 323, 324,341/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no allegation of committing any assault against the petitioner No. 1, the father, and the allegation against the petitioner no. 2. the son, of inflicting repeated blows of knife is actually absurd inasmuch as the petitioners and the injured are neighbours and infact they have been implicated on account of some earlier dispute. He further submits that parties have now compromised the case and in support thereof, Annexure-2, an application dated 03.12.2007 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah has been produced. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submits that the injured had sustained grievous injury and was treated at Gorakhpur Medical College and Hospital. That apart, he submits that it was not that the petitioner no. 2 2 had just gave one or two knife blows rather the allegation is that repeated knife blows were given and as such it can be very well said that there was a definite attempt to kill the injured. Considering the fact that the allegation against the petitioner no. 1, the father is only either of including his son (petitioner no. 2) or participating in the initial part of the bodily scuffle, this court taking into account that the petitioner no. 1 Ramayan Yadav is in custody since 03.12.2007, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail in Srinagar Police Station Case No. 23 of 2005 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah with condition that one of the bailors must be the wife of the petitioner. As with regard to the case of petitioner no. 2, Nanhu Yadav, there being direct allegation of causing repeated knife blows and the injured having been treated after being taken to Gorakhpur Medical College and Hospital, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner no. 2 at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail on behalf of the petitioner Nanhu Yadav is hereby rejected. However, the Trial Court is directed to conclude 3 the trial of the petitioners within a period of two years from today. In the event, the trial is not concluded within the aforementioned period, the petitioner no. 2 will initially move the Trial Court seeking regular bail and the Trial Court will be obliged to spell out the reasons for not concluding the trial and only thereafter the petitioner may move for bail before this Court. Anand (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)