IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.1936 of 2011 1. PRADIP YADAV 2. PRAMOD YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 03/ 25.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. P.P. for the State. Although petitioners are not named in the first information report but after institution of the present case victim was recovered in the company of the petitioners who were arrested by the Officer Incharge of Sono police station and fire arms and ammunitions were recovered from the possession of the petitioners for which a separate case was instituted. It appears from perusal of the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jamui that the statement of the victim was recorded under section 164 of the Cr. P.C in which the victim specifically stated about involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime. Taking into consideration the above stated facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, prayer for bail of the petitioners in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case no. 142/2010 stands rejected. However, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui should commit the case of the petitioners to the court of Sessions in accordance with law, if their case has not been committed to the court of Sessions as yet and after commitment, the trial court shall expedite the trial of the petitioners. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)