IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26186 of 2009 MD.OBES @ OKSA, son of late Md. Ashtu, resident of village Champanagar under P.S. Nath Nagar, District Bhagalpur Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 2.9.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. Normally it is expected that when an accused will be granted bail he will comply with the terms and conditions of such grant of bail. In the present case the petitioner was granted bail in the year 1992 arising out of Sessions trial of the year 1990 pertaining to Sabour (Industrial) P.S.Case No. 158/89 but then the petitioner did not appear before the court below after 2.8.1994, whereafter the court was constrained to issue processes u/s 82- 83 Cr.P.C. and was declared permanent absconder on 13.8.2004. The petitioner was in fact arrested (did not surrender) on 30.3.2009 and now his counsel would submit that the petitioner at best has misused the privilege of bail for a period of five years taking the date of declaration of his being permanent absconder as period of misuse of privilege of bail. Such submission is only 2 to be noted for its being rejected. The petitioner had misused the privilege of bail from 2.8.1994 to 30.3.2009 i.e. almost for a period of 15 years and the sessions trial of the year 1990 had remained unconcluded only primarily because the petitioner had been absconding. That being so, this Court finds no error in the order of the court below rejecting prayer for bail of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 30.3.2009 i.e. less than a period of six months and since now he has been before the court, the sessions trial of the year 1990 can be taken up for its conclusion even on day to day basis so that the trial itself is concluded within a period of six months from today. In the event the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from today, the petitioner shall have the liberty to move the trial court for grant of bail and the trial court will record reasons for not concluding the sessions trial of the year 1990. It is only thereafter that the petitioner may move this Court. 3 With the aforementioned observations, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/