IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5237 of 2007 1. RAJ KISHORI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE LALAN PRASAD VERMA 2. RATNESH KUMAR @ SONALAL, SON OF LATE LALAN PRASAD VERMA 3. PANNALAL, SON OF LATE LALAN PRASAD VERMA 4. ARTI KUMARI @ ARTI, DAUGHTER OF LATE LALAN PRASAD VERMA ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASTI KHAWAJPUR, P.S. BALIGAON, DISTRICT VAISHALI. ---- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMCHANDRA PRASAD VERMA, SON OF LATE JANG BAHADU VERMA 3. MALA SINHA, DAUGHTER OF RAMCHANDRA PRASAD VERMA OPPOSITE PARTY NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MISRAULIYA, P.S. SAKARA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. ---- OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- 17 19.3.2010 This application was filed because the petitioners’ bail application was cancelled alleging that they were not complying with the compromise made out of the Court. By order dated 8.8.2007, the High Court ordered that the trial should be expedited by taking up the matter avoiding all sorts of adjournments so that the final verdict should come within two months from the date of communication of this order. The opposite parties appeared and stated that it is the petitioners who are not complying with the order and are taking time and not allowing the trial to be expedited whereas the petitioners submit that it is the opposite parties who has been lingering the case and not allowing the trial to conclude. I hereby direct that the Court below should not grant time either to the petitioners or the opposite parties for any purpose whatsoever except on the ground of illness and that too should be certified by a doctor in Government hospital. The Court should fix 15th of April, 2010 as the first date for hearing and conclude the 2 hearing by the end of April, 2010 and pass judgment thereafter. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. The impugned order cancelling the bail of the petitioner, dated 25.2.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in Misc. Case No. 59/2005 relating to Sakra PS Case No. 312/2002 and the order, dated 13.1.2007 passed by the A.D.J. Ist, Muzaffarpur are quashed. In the mean time, the petitioners shall continue to enjoy the facility of bail until the judgment is delivered in this case. Counsel for the petitioners is permitted to deposit the cost of FAX for communicating this order to the Court of the A.D.J Ist, Muzaffarpur in Cr. Misc. No. 42/2006. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)