IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34902 of 2009 VIKASH TANTI, son of Sakaldeo Tanti, resident of village Chhoti Daulatpur, P.S. Jamalpur, District Munger Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 26.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the informant as also the State. The petitioner faces prosecution for offence u/s 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and there is a direct allegation against him that it was he who took the victim in his company and was seen last with him by the complainant/informant. Till date there is no trace of the victim. Counsel for the petitioner, however, would submit that not only such complaint is belated by at least 14 days but the victim himself is a veteran criminal of being accused in at least 10 cases and therefore, when the last of his case was with regard to gunning down a member of C.R.P.F., the victim in fact may have made his own escape to avoid the wrath of the police. All such defence of the petitioner could have inspired confidence had the 2 petitioner not been consistently named by the persons examined by the police in course of investigation to be the last seen with the victim who till date is missing. It is true that the petitioner is in custody since 3.8.2008 but then considering the gravity of the offence as also criminal antecedent this Court would reject the prayer for bail of the petitioner by directing the trial court to ensure that the trial of the petitioner which has already commenced is concluded within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If for any reason the trial of the petitioner will not be concluded in the aforementioned period he will have the liberty initially to move the trial court which then will record reasons for not concluding the trial, only thereafter the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/ 3