IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32401 of 2009 NEPAL SINGH @ SUBODH SINGH, Son of Hari Prasad Singh, Resident of village Barauni, P.S. Teghra, District Begusarai Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 1.4.2010 Heard Mr. Mukul Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The prayer for regular bail of the petitioner for offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act has been rejected on two occasions by the order dated 29.11.2007 in Cr.Misc.No. 43974/2007 and on 10.9.2008 in Cr.Misc.No. 31114/2008 wherein all possible facets of merits of the case has already been discussed. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that he has nothing to add on merits of the case but then as the petitioner is in custody since 13.6.2007 and till date only two witnesses have been examined in course of trial, the prayer for bail of the petitioner may be reconsidered. True it is that the petitioner is in custody for more than 2½ years but then considering the nature of allegation this 2 Court would not be inclined to grant bail to the petitioner even after completion of the aforementioned period. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is, accordingly, rejected. The trial court, however, is under obligation to ensure that the trial of the petitioner is concluded expeditiously and therefore, it would be expectation of this Court that the trial of the petitioner would be concluded within 15 months from today. In the event the trial of the petitioner would not be completed in the aforementioned period solely on account of laches on the part of the prosecution he would have the liberty to move the trial court for grant of bail then it would record its reason for not concluding the trial and only thereafter the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before this Court. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/