IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37501 of 2009 ANUP KUMAR, SON OF LATE KESHO RAM, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA CHAUKHANDI PAR, P.S. BIHARSHARIF, DISTRICT-NALANDA……………………..PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR……………….OPPOSITE PARTY. -------------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Kamal Nayan Choubey, Senior Advocate and Rewti Kant Raman, Advocate. For the State : Mr. R.P.S. Singh, A.P.P. --------- 3. 14.12.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner’s prayer for bail had earlier been rejected vide Annexure-‘1’. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it has come during the course of investigation that the defalcation was of the period when the petitioner was not posted there as Deputy Post Master as he joined the post office on 7.7.2008 and defalcation was reported on 30.7.2009. It has also been submitted that the statement of the petitioner under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was not recorded in accordance with the provisions as contained in - 2 - Section 164(4) Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 437(2) Cr.P.C. contemplates conclusion of trial within sixty days from the date of first date fixed for evidence in the case. It is clear from the provisions aforesaid that the intention of legislature is that the trial of such cases be concluded without delay. However, in the present case, the charges are yet to be framed though the police paper has been submitted on 16.3.2009 itself. It is also stated that in paragraph nos.19 and 20, the name of other persons have also figured but there has been no inquiry in this regard. However, having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, as well as the fact that the bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide Annexure- ‘1’ and I do not find any subsequent development and fresh ground for the purpose of enlarging the petitioner on bail, the same is rejected for the present. The trial court is directed to take every steps for expeditious disposal of the trial. As a result, this application is dismissed at this stage. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)