IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31936 of 2009 KAILA @ KAILASH YADAV, son of Ramabtar Yadav, resident of village Kujbanna, P.S. Pirpainti, District Bhagalpur Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 8.9.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The kidnapped boy, the son of the informant, is still missing and though the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. but right from the beginning of investigation finger of suspicion was raised against him as is mentioned in paragraphs 3, 5, 12 and 31 of the case diary indicating that it was the petitioner who was in league with three named F.I.R. accused and was, therefore, also associated in kidnapping of the son of the informant. The police after investigation has submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and the trial of the case can be definitely taken up as investigation has already been completed. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. or that even after four months when a protest petition was filed, only the name of Gayani 2 Yadav was sought to be added, has to be appreciated in the back drop of the fact that the name of the petitioner has come immediately in course of investigation in different paragraphs of the case diary and therefore, the omission of name of the petitioner in the protest petition of the informant would not affect the allegations of the complicity of the petitioner as recorded in the case diary. That being so, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner taking into account that the kidnapped boy has not been recovered till date. This Court, therefore, would direct for taking up the trial of the petitioner on out of turn basis and ensure that his trial along with other co-accused is concluded within a period of nine months from today. In the event the trial is not concluded in the aforementioned period the petitioner shall have the liberty to initially move the trial court which will have to record reasons for not concluding the trial. It is only thereafter that the petitioner shall have the liberty to move this Court for 3 bail. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/