IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.49827 of 2008 SANTOSH KUMAR @ SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02. 06.01.2009 The petitioner is in custody since 20.05.2005 in relation to Shambhuganj P.S. Case No. 26 of 2005 pertaining to Sessions Trial No. 964 of 2006 pending before F.T.C., IV, Banka. The case is under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. but on being apprehended was identified in T.I.P. This Court earlier rejected the bail application vide order dated 9.6.2008 in Cr. Misc. No. 22009 of 2008 observing that once the identifying witness is examined in trial within a period of three months, petitioner’s bail application would be considered. Even though this observation was given, petitioner has not moved the Trial Court. Petitioner is granted liberty to move the Trial Court once again for bail bringing earlier order of this Court to the notice of the Trial Court. The Trial court would be well advised to look into the matter as to why in over six months period, the relevant witness has not been examined and further why in almost four years only four witnesses have been examined. - 2 - In case there is no satisfactory explanation for this inordinate delay, the Trial Court would note the facts and grant bail to the petitioner to his satisfaction on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount. With these observations, this application is disposed of. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the Trial Court at the cost of the petitioner. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)