IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5692 of 2010 RITESH KUMAR @ TINKU, SON OF KRISHNANDAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE/P.O.-RASALPUR, P.S. DUMRA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.22565 of 2009 AMRESH KUMAR SON OF RAM YUGAL SINHA @ MANFUL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NARAINPUR, P.S. DUMRA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. Versus STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.37326 of 2009 AJIT KUMAR @ TULLU, SON OF SRI KAMLESH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RASALPUR, P.S. DUMRA, DISTRICT SITAMARHI. Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 8.3.2010. Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel and Mr. Banwari Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Dinesh Jha, learned counsel for the informant. The petitioners are in custody in connection with Dumra P.S. Case No.5 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 364A, 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation in this case against accused persons is that 13 years old son of informant was kidnapped by accused persons by way of hatching conspiracy amongst each - 2 - other. After kidnapping the boy, demand of ransom was made. Subsequently, after noticing that the accused persons may not get the ransom amount, the victim boy was brutally killed and thereafter his dead body was buried beneath a railway line. It has been alleged, during investigation that even after committing death, the accused persons were in touch with the informant and after murdering the victim boy, the accused persons persuaded the informant to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as ransom amount on the pretext that the victim will be released. Subsequently, the police investigated the case and after investigation, charge sheet has already been submitted. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegation, I am not inclined to grant bail to these petitioners. The court has been informed by the learned counsel for the informant that the case has already been committed and case is fixed for framing of the charge. Accordingly, it is desirable to direct the trial court to hear the parties on charge immediately without any delay and - 3 - N.H./ after framing of charges, if trial is not concluded within a period of nine months, the petitioners shall be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail. However, it is made clear that defence shall not take any steps to delay the conclusion of trial with a view to circumvent this order. With above observation and direction, all the aforesaid bail petitions are rejected. It is also made clear that directly or indirectly accused persons shall not try to influence any of the witnesses. Trial court is also directed to take initiative to conclude the trial expeditiously after framing of the charge preferably within a period of nine months from the date of framing of the charge. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)