IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.35826 of 2008 GOKUL YADAV … … Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR … Opp. Party For the petitioner: Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Sr.Adv. For the State: Shri Dashrath Mehta, APP ----------- 4. 10.11.2008 Heard both the sides. The petitioner’s earlier prayers for bail were dismissed by Annexures- 1 and 1/1. While passing the order contained in Annexure-1/1, the Court had granted a liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after six months and on examination of the informant and his brother Jai Govind Sharma during the trial. There is no dispute that the above noted witnesses- the informant and his brother Jai Govind Sharma, have been examined. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the deposition sheets of the informant as Annexure 4 to the present petition. The deposition sheet of Jai Govind Sharma has not been annexed. The informant does not dispute that he has also been examined. The F.I.R. contains the allegation 2 that this petitioner Gokul Yadav took out a bomb from the Jhola held by one Kulo Yadav and hurled the same on the deceased, that is, the brother of the informant, so as to killing him. An attempt was made by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the identity of the petitioner could not be certain as the name of the petitioner appears taken by accused Navin Yadav and Kulo Yadav on the arrival of the petitioner and Rajesh. This contention was countered by learned counsel appearing for the informant by referring to the deposition of the informant that the witness identified the petitioner as an accused and that identification has not even be challenged by cross-examining the informant properly or even by throwing a suggestion at him. I have gone through the copy of deposition of the witness and I find that the witness has named the petitioner as the assailant and in the manner as indicated above. When the question of fixity of identity of the present petitioner and his 3 participation has remained to be decided by the trial court, this Court does not have any reason to express any opinion on that .This remains a foregone conclusion that the informant has named the petitioner in his evidence. This Court does not see any reason to reconsider the prayer. The petition is dismissed. Let the trial Judge almost and at any rate conclude the trial within six months. The counsel for the informant is present and he is directed to convey the message of the Court for the production of the witnesses on day-to-day basis. If the witnesses are not produced, the learned trial Judge could apply other options including that of imposition of cost under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha)