IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.26336 of 2010 RAKESH RAI, SON OF NEPAL RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04 10.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned P.P. for the State. Petitioner seeks his bail in connection with Shahpur P.S. Case No. 151 of 2009 registered under Sections 394/302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. Although, petitioner is not named in the First Information Report, but it appears from the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge that petitioner along with others were arrested with illegal fire arms and stolen vehicle in connection with other case and he confessed his guilt disclosing his involvement in the present case also and subsequently, the petitioner was put on Test Identification Parade. He was identified by one witness. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that identification by a single witness that is too after four months of the alleged occurrence, is not a cogent evidence, but I am not at all convinced with this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is a serious case of loot and murder. So, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in view of the above stated materials. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Sri Anand Abhishek has reported that the case of the petitioner has not been committed to the court of Sessions as yet. The concerned court is directed to commit the case of the petitioner in accordance with law within a month from the date of receipt of this order and after commitment, the trial Judge should expedite the trial of the petitioner and if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within nine months from the date of framing of the charge, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. Shahzad ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)