IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18532 of 2009 HINDI YADAV son of Vino Yadav @ Bindeshwari Yadav, resident of village- Kanki Tola Sahu Parvatta, District- Bhagalpur. … Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 29.07.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Prayer of the petitioner for bail was earlier rejected on two occasions by order dated 8.5.2008 in Cr. Misc. No. 4752 of 2008 and another order dated 3.12.2008 in Cr. Misc. No. 49467 of 2008. In fact, this application has been filed as per the observation made in the order dated 8.5.2008 whereby a liberty was given to the petitioner to move this Court for grant of bail if the trial was not completed within a period of one year i.e. by 8.5.2009. From the order impugned which was passed pursuant to an observation made by this Court for explaining the delay in conclusion of the trial beyond a period of one year as fixed in the order dated 8.5.2008, it would transpire that petitioner/ accused persons are primarily 2 responsible for causing delay in disposal of the trial. Charges have been framed after great efforts on 28.1.2009 as on earlier date the accused persons were evading their appearance. If that be so, the period from 8.5.2008 to 28.1.2009 can never be taken into consideration to be lache on the part of prosecution. From the order of the Court below it would also transpire that there has been some sort of dilatory tactic of lengthy cross-examination of the witnesses as has also been recorded with regard to P. W. 1. Considering all these aspects this Court would find that the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail for the present on the ground of completion of one year. This Court would, therefore, give further six months time from today to the court below to conclude the trial and in the event the trial is not completed within the aforementioned period, the petitioner again will have only liberty to move before the court blow seeking bail and the court below 3 will have to record reasons for not concluding the trial and only thereafter the petitioner may move before this Court for reconsideration of his prayer for bail. With the aforesaid observations and directions the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected for the time being. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)