IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34903 of 2010 RAMPRIT PASWAN, SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RANVARIPUR, P.S. WENA, DISTRICT-NALANDA……………....PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR……………….OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudish Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Gopesh Kumar, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Advocate. ---------- 9. 9.2.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for the informant. Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code besides Section 27of the Arms Act. Petitioner’s prayer for bail had earlier been rejected vide order dated 26.3.2010 passed in Criminal Misc. No.3326 of 2010. According to the allegation, the informant and others were intercepted by the accused persons and thereafter two of them were taken out of from the vehicle and were shot dead. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2 petitioner is not the assailant, rather the allegation against him is that he had dragged one Vijay Pandit to the place near Railway Line and thereafter two accused persons had fired at him. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that it was a pre-planned murder and the petitioner has taken active role in the said occurrence. I have perused the report of the trial court, in which it has been stated that 7 out of 16 chargesheeted witnesses have already been examined. However, learned counsel for the informant submitted that 9 witnesses have now been examined by now. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation against the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, no good ground could be put forth for grant of bail to the petitioner. As a result, this application for bail once again is rejected. However, since trial has already commenced and several witnesses have already been examined and petitioner has remained in custody since 15.10.2009, it would be expected from the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six 3 months. The petitioner, if so advised, would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the event the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period of six months. P.S./Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)