IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.13032 of 2011 RAJESH SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3 21.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state. The petitioner is husband of the deceased and there is specific allegation against him that he poured K.oil on the person of the deceased and thereafter, lit fire as a result of which, the deceased sustained burn injury. The statement of deceased was recorded on 30.10.2008. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is languishing in jail custody since 17.12.2008 and as a matter of fact, on the alleged date of occurrence, the deceased was playing with Phuljhari but unfortunately, the fire caught her Sari and she engulfed in fire as a result of which, she sustained burn injury. It is also pointed out by him that the petitioner tried to extinguish the fire but he, too, sustained burn injury on his palm which is evident from Annexure-3 of this application. It is also pointed out by him that the alleged occurrence took place between the night of 28.10.2008 and 29.10.2008 at about 6.30 a.m. The mother of the petitioner made her statement before the police disclosing the real fact. It is further contended by him that when the aforesaid occurrence took place, the petitioner raised alarm which attracted the neighbours who saw the entire incident which is evident 2 from different paragraphs of the case diary. It is also contended by him that just after the alleged occurrence, the deceased was taken to hospital where her treatment was done. It is further contended by him that when the deceased was brought to Patna for better treatment, her parents came there and, thereafter, she implicated the petitioner and his other family members. Although a very elaborate argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner but I am not at all convinced with the submission and in my view, it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner at least, at this stage particularly, in the light of status report of the trial court. The trial court has reported that trial of the petitioner has already commenced and up-till-now, two prosecution witnesses have already been examined. In the aforesaid circumstances, the prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Sessions Trial No. 474 of 2009 arising out of Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 154 of 2008 stands rejected. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the petitioner as soon as possible preferably within nine months. It is made clear that if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within above-said period, he may pray before the trial court for renewal of his prayer for bail. AKV/- ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)