IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31265 of 2009 1.RAJ DEO YADAV, Son of Ram Sharan Yadav 2.Doman Yadav, Son of Late Nanhuk Yadav Both are residents of Village-Pachour, Police Station Rafiganj, District-Aurangabad. Versus STATE OF BIHAR Cr.Misc. No.35603 of 2009 1.DINESH YADAV, Son of Kauleshar Yadav 2.Mungeshwar Yadav, Son of Jawahar Yadav Both resident of Village-Pachar, P.S. Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad (Bihar). Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 12/10/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. Counsel for the petitioners in both the cases have pressed for grant of bail primarily on the ground that the allegation made against them in the F.I.R has been found to be false in the connected trial of the co-accused where none of ten prosecution witnesses has supported the prosecution version. This Court however would find that the accused persons had not only taken law in their hands while committing the offence but have also delayed the trial by remaining absconding for a long period. The petitioners are named accused persons in the First Information Report with specific overt-act and yet they kept on evading arrest and in fact absconding leading to separation of trial of other accused persons. Now after such trial 2 has progressed or is at the verge of completion the petitioners, evading arrest and absconding, have surrendered and they are taking plea that nothing has been brought on the record in the evidence in the connected trial since all the witnesses have become hostile and their continuing in jail custody will serve no meaningful purpose. This Court is amazed with such ingenious systematic chain under which serious criminal cases are sought to be made meaningless only by delaying tactics adopted by the accused persons in collusion with investigating agency and helpless judicial cumbersome process bound by its procedural law. Present case in fact is one of such example. The petitioners, namely, Dinesh Yadav and Mungeshwar Yadav (Petitioners in Cr. Misc. No.35603 of 2009) are said to be main assailant in the F.I.R. itself who are said to have given fatal gun shot injury. The F.I.R. came to be lodged on 27.7.2004 and they have surrendered after five years on 19.6.2009. In this period of five years the C.I.D. has investigated the allegations and found that the deceased person was done to death by extremists and that such aspect also got support in the separated Sessions Trial for the remaining accused. It is not very difficult for this Court to understand as to how the C.I.D. investigation is taken up in these straight forward cases by giving them a colour of complex look and as to how the segregated Sessions Trial by allowing the main accused persons absconding is concluded to make the whole prosecution case itself a farce. 3 Judged in the aforesaid light Dinesh Yadav and Mungeshwar Yadav, therefore, do not deserve bail and their prayer for bail is accordingly rejected. The trial court is hereby directed to ensure that trial of the petitioners is expedited and completed within a period of two years from today. Sofar the case of petitioners, namely, Rajdeo Yadav and Doman Yadav (Petitioners in Cr. Misc. No.31265 of 2009) are concerned, they are said to be merely members of the mob which had done away with the life of the deceased. Since this Court has granted bail to other members of mob including Jawahir Yadav @ Dwahir Yadav, Raj Kumar Yadav, Pran Yadav, Budhu Yadav, Mahadeo Yadav in Cr. Misc. No.459 of 2009 disposed of on 24.2.2009 and co-accused Jang Yadav in Cr.Misc. No.3037 of 2009 disposed of on 21.8.2009, this Court was also inclined to grant them bail, but again taking into account that they had successfully evaded arrest for a period of five years would direct for release of the petitioners, namely, Raj Deo Yadav and Doman Yadav (petitioners in Cr. Misc. No.31265 of 2009) only after completing period of six months of their judicial custody on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in Rafiganj P.S. Case No.154 of 2004. In other words, the aforesaid two petitioners shall be released on or after 20th December, 2009 subject to the condition that both the bailers for them would be their close family relative 4 and that they shall remain present in course of trial without fail and their absence for two consecutive dates shall entail automatic consequence of cancellation of their bail. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)