IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34475 of 2010 MANDEO SAW @ RAJU, SON OF RAM NATH SAW Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4. 23.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 25(1-b) (a), 26 (2) of the Arms Act, Sections ¾ of Explosive Substance Act and Section 17 of C.L.A. Act. The petitioner was refused bail by an order dated 4.2.2010 but has renewed his prayed for bail on the ground that he is ailing. When a report was called for from the Trial Court about the present stage of the trial, it was reported that out of nine witnesses, none of them have been examined but the court will attempt to conclude the trial within a period of six months if both the parties co- operate in the same. Considering that huge amount of explosives were recovered from a room where the petitioner was found present, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail is rejected. However, the Trial Court will ensure that the petitioner is given proper treatment and does not suffer without adequate treatment. S.Ali ( Anjana Prakash, J.)