IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43973 of 2009 ARJUN SAW, SON OF GOBIND SAW, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANER TELPA, POLICE STATION-BIKRAM, DISTRICT-PATNA…………………………….PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR……………….OPPOSITE PARTY. ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Girish Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. U.S.P. Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 4. 4.5.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the FIR there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons and the materials collected during the course of investigation also at best reveal general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 26.2.2007. I have perused the report with regard to the stage of the concerned trial, kept at flag ‘A’. It has been stated therein that charges in this case have been framed on - 2 - 17.6.2009 and summons have been issued to the witnesses on 2.7.2009 but no witness could be examined as yet. It has also been stated that non bailable warrants have been issued against the official witnesses, however, the case is pending for evidence. Learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that there is allegation against all the accused persons regarding torture and committing murder of the daughter of the informant and the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and also that charges have already been framed in this case. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. As a result, this application is dismissed. However, since the petitioner is stated to be in custody since 26.2.2007 and till date no witness could be examined, the trial court is directed to take every possible steps for expeditious disposal of the concerned trial, preferably within six months. If the trial is not concluded within six months, the petitioner, if so advised, would be at - 3 - liberty to renew his prayer for bail. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)