IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.14010 of 2009 AMARJEET SAHNI @ GHONCHWA SAHNI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03/ 07.10.2009 Heard. The earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was refused because the trial court has fixed a time frame of four months for deciding the case. A report was called for by the court so as to knowing the reason for non-conclusion of the trial and the learned Trial Judge in his report has shifted the responsibility for the pendency of the trial on other officers of court. He has admitted that the case was received by him on 25.5.2009 and in spite of that the trial is pending till date. The reason assigned by the learned trial Judge is that he was deciding an interlocutory matter in respect of accused Ashok Kumar Rai. There is nothing mentioned in the report that the trail of other accused persons was stayed by this Court for deciding the question of juvenility of that particular accused. The Court feels that the learned Judge was simply sleeping over the matter. Considering the period of custody of the petitioner and the fact that the trial court has not lined up to the expectations of the Court, let petitioner Amarjeet Sahni @ - 2 - Ghonchwa Sahni be released from custody on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Samastipur in connection with Sessions Trial No. 906 of 2006 arising out of Tajpur P.S. Case No. 151 of 2006. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)