JUDGMENT 1. - This is a second bail application by the accused petitioner Budha. Maharaj Singh under section 439 in a case under sections 457 and 380 IPC which is pending in the court of Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bayana. The previous bail application was dismissed by this Court on November 24, 1980. The ground now urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial of this Court has not been concluded with in a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case i. e August 28, 1980, and as such the petitioner is now entitled to be released on bail as a matter of right 'under sub-section (6) of Section 437 Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on Partap and Others v. State of Rajasthan, 1966 Cri. LJ 1052 in which it was held as under : "After carefully considering the arguments advanced on either side, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the purpose underlying this sub-section is that the trial of non-bailable offence in a Magistrate's court should be concluded within 60 days from the first date fixed for recording evidence provided the accused was in custody during the entire period. If the trial is not concluded within the specified time the accused should be released on bail. The amendment is confined to non-bailable cases in the Court of the Magistrate only. The legislature did not contemplate the amendment to cover to trials before the Court of session." It is no doubt true that ordinarily if the trial is not concluded within a period of 60 days from the first date of taking evidence the accused is entitled to be released on bail. But in the same sub-section it is further provided 'unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs." In the present case the bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge by his order dated October 3, 1980, on the ground that the accused appeared to be a habitual offender and is in the habit of absconding after committing the offence. In this regard he further made a mention that the petitioner did not appear previously also after being released on bail and committed other offence during the period when he remained on bail. In this regard he further made a mention that the petitioner did not appear previously also after being released on bail and committed other offence during the period when he remained on bail. He further mentioned that the case was pending since 1975 and in case the accused shall be released on bail then there was a likelihood in the delay of the trial. From a perusal of the order-sheet dated November 28, 1980, it appears that the accused Krishna another co-accused in the case is also absconding. It appears that only two more witnesses remain to be examined in the case and as the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the petitioner had forfeited the bail bonds on an earlier occasion also and there was some material to arrive at the conclusion that during the pendency of the period when the petitioner remained on bail he committed another offence. 2. In the above circumstances, I don't consider it a fit case for releasing the petitioner on bail even though the trial has not been concluded within a period of 60 days. The trial court is, however, directed to furnish the trial of the case within two months. 3. With these observations this application is dismissed.Bail application dismissed. *******