IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellanious No.8533 of 2011 RANA YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR 4 11-07-2011 Supplementary affidavit has been fled on behalf of the petitioner bringing the injury report of injured of this case. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the state. Although there is specific allegation of firing against the petitioner but submission on behalf of the petitioner is that as per the prosecution story, the alleged occurrence took place at 1.00 p.m. but injury report of the injured reveals that he was examined by the doctor at 12.45 p.m. It is further contended by him that much prior to the alleged occurrence, the petitioner had already filed an informatory petition apprehending his false implication by the petitioner. It is contended by him that in course of investigation, one independent witness, namely, Pawan Tanti was examined by the I.O. vide paragraph-21 of the case diary and the said Pawan Tanti specifically, stated that a cross firing was made between the petitioner and the injured of this case. It is further contended by him that one so-called eye witness namely, Binay Kumar has not stated the name of the petitioner. Taking into consideration the above-said submission as well as facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, this - 2 - aspect of the matter that the petitioner carries criminal antecedent of near about 13 cases which is evident from letter of Superintendent of Police, Munger dated 16.04.2011, I do not feel it proper to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Dharahra P.S. Case No. 86 of 2010 stands rejected. It appears from the record that case of the petitioner is still pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger should commit the case of the petitioner to the court of sessions in accordance with law within a month from the date of receipt of the order and the learned trial court should conclude the trial of the petitioner within six months from the date of receipt of the record in his court. The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail if his trial is not concluded within the above-said period. A.K.Vishwakarma/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)