JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel For the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. This Court while rejecting the earlier bail application on 29th June, 1982, had observed as follows:- "The learned Sessions Judge, Bundi, is directed to complete the case within two months from today ..." In spite of this specific direction of this Court, the learned Sessions Judge has not completed the trial. 2. The present bail application was tiled on 8th October, 1982, as it was obscured by this Court in its order dated 29th June, 1982 that it would be ripen to the petitioner to move another bail application if the trial is not completed within two months. Thereafter, this Court on 11th October, 1982, directed the Public Prosecutor to ask his counterpart about the progress of the case and the bail application came up before this court on several dates and it is only today that the learned Public Prosecutor is able to explain the delay. The statement of PW 4 was recorded on 26th August, 1982 and that of PW 5 and PW 6 on 7th November, 1982, and thereafter, the case was adjourned for 9th September, 1982 and 10th September, 1982, It is not clear as to what happened on those dates. Thereafter, the case came up on 18th October, 1982. No statement was recorded on that date and the case was adjourned for 9th November. 1982. On 9th November, 1982, the Sessions Judge was on leave. On 10th November, 1982, the counsel for the accused was not available, and therefore, the witnesses could not be examined. Now, the case is fixed for 1st and 6th December, 1982. It is very unfortunate that in spite of specific directions of this Court both the learned Sessions judge as well as the learned Public Prosecutor have not been able to see that the directions of this Court are obeyed and they have taken the matter very lazily. 3. Without expressing anything on merits of the case. I think that the amused-applicant should be enlarged on bail. The bail application is accordingly, allowed, and it is ordered that the petitioner. Durgalal S/o Bheru Gujar be released on bail, provided, be furnishes a personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 3. Without expressing anything on merits of the case. I think that the amused-applicant should be enlarged on bail. The bail application is accordingly, allowed, and it is ordered that the petitioner. Durgalal S/o Bheru Gujar be released on bail, provided, be furnishes a personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that court as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against him. *******