IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50911 of 2008 MAHENDRAPRASAD @ MAHENDRA RAM … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Shri Staya Ranjan Sinha For the State: Shri Dashrath Mehta,APP ----------- 2. 15.12.2008 Heard. The merit of the prayer, which is fourth for getting bail, has already been decided in the three earlier orders which are annexures-1 series, out of which one was under Section 438 Cr. P.C. and the remaining two under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Considering the merit, I do not want to go into the case in which the prayer could be reconsidered and the petitioner could be directed to be released on bail. The petition is dismissed. I want to bring on record that learned counsel for the petitioner tried his best to convince this Court that there were materials sufficient enough in the evidence of the witnesses examined so far which could entitle the petitioner to bail but keeping in view the consistent judicial view relating 2 to bail to be granted to the assailant of the deceased, I am not inclined to direct the release of the petitioner on bail, as indicated above. However, it is contended that the three witnesses were examined after big gaps and that has resulted in the trial being delayed and the case stands still pending though the charges were framed sometimes in 2007. I could direct the learned Judge who could be hearing the trial of Sessions Trial No. 271 of 2007 to have a glance of the provision of Section 170(2) of the Cr. P.C. as also of the law propounded by the Supreme Court in Shailendra Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar: A.I.R. 2002, S.C. 270 and to act accordingly so as to concluding the trial at the earliest. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)