IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25962 of 2009 1. UDAY YADAV 2. Shiv Kumar Yadav, both son of Ramautar Yadav, both residents of village Paigambarpur, P.S. Keoti, District Darbhanga Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 1.9.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State. Shocking can be the simple expression as with regard to the conduct of the petitioners. They were made accused by name in a criminal case filed against them as also their other family members pertaining to certain allegations of section 498A and other allied offences of the Indian Penal Code but they had successfully evaded their arrest for a period of ten years and could be taken into custody only on 10.6.2009. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were pursuing their study or that the main accused, the husband, was already granted bail in 2004 or that the trial of the appearing accused persons ended in acquittal can hardly be an explanation for the aforementioned shocking conduct of 2 the petitioners. That being so, this Court for the time being is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners and therefore, this Court can only direct the trial court to ensure that the trial against the petitioners is taken up out of turn on day to day basis and is concluded within a period of six months from today. In the event such trial will not be concluded only on account of lache or lapse on the part of the prosecution, in the aforementioned period the petitioners will be released on bail on expiry of the said period. Such privilege will however be not extended to the petitioners if they or any other accused person will cause delay in conclusion of the trial. With the aforementioned observations, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/