K. K. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) APPLICANT Mithun alias Shamshad was arrested by the Bahodapur police on or about 10-6-1985 in crime No. 135/85 registered initially under S. 307/34 I. P. C. on 6-6-1985 in respect of a transaction in which one Madan @ Pappoo had received injuries from others. Pappoo died from the injuries on 12-6-1985. The case was converted into one under S. 302 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE challan was filed in the month of Sept. 85. The charge of murder was framed on 31-10-1985. Out of a list of 20 prosecution witnesses so far only six have been examined. In criminal misc. case No. 1214/86 decided on 17-10-1986. This Court rejected there preceding bail application with the following observations :-"from the copies of the order-sheets of the trial Judge, right from 27-12-1985 to 26-8-1986, and also the statement of both the counsel that the case now stands adjourned to 21-10-1986 for recording of prosecution evidence. It is clear that the time from 27-12-1985 till the date of the bail application, was consumed by lack of system in the process of the trial and want of care in securing the attendance of witnesses on the part of the Presiding Judge, the Public Prosecutor and also by the Police Officers. For example, so far only 5 witnesses out of a list of 22 witnesses, have been examined. The learned Judge and the prosecution seem to think that the remaining witnesses would be examined in one day, namely 21-10-1986. There is, however, still an opportunity to the prosecution to obtain dates for day to day trial in the case, if they had their heart set in the matter. I hope and expect that they have. . . " ( 3 ) NOW, what happened in the sequel is as follows : - on 21-10-1986 no prosecution witnesses were in attendance. On 22-10-1986 one Rambabu's cross-examination was concluded. Then P. W. 7 Kanhaiya was examined and discharged. A reference was made to 4 other witnesses. It was said that one Bodharam had died while Anilkumar and Kalloo and one Gita were absent. It was also observed that the summonses issued for service on Anilkumar and Kalloo had not been received back. The learned Public Prosecutor's prayer to produce these witnesses on the next working day was granted. A reference was made to 4 other witnesses. It was said that one Bodharam had died while Anilkumar and Kalloo and one Gita were absent. It was also observed that the summonses issued for service on Anilkumar and Kalloo had not been received back. The learned Public Prosecutor's prayer to produce these witnesses on the next working day was granted. On 23-10-1986 Gita was examined and discharged, but, Anil and Kalloo remained absent. They were ordered to be summoned, and the case was adjourned to 24-10-1986 for remaining witnesses but without having ordered them to be summoned. On 24-10-1986 prosecution witnesses were absent. The Court ordered the prosecutor to keep witnesses in attendance or get them summoned. The case was adjourned to 28-10-1986. The applicant's learned counsel states that on 28-10-1986 no prosecution witnesses were examined. On 29-10-1986 there were no prosecution witnesses. The case was adjourned to 14-11-1986, when only Head Constable Onkarnath Pandey was in attendance who could not be examined in the absence of some record. What was that record is not disclosed in the order sheet. Other witnesses were absent. The Prosecutor prayed for time and the learned trial Judge gave it, and the case now stands adjourned to 29-11-1986. The order sheet does not show the number and the names of the witnesses against whom warrants of arrest bailable in the sum of Rs. 50/- were to be issued. ( 4 ) THE applicant's learned counsel's plea for grant of bail is that there has been no serious attempt at all on behalf of the prosecution and the Trial Court for a speedy trial and, as such, if what has happened so far is any indication, the applicant is surely going to languish for quite some time in jail for no fault of his so far as the tardiness of the trial is concerned, at any rate after 17-10-1986. ( 5 ) THE learned Govt. Advocate says that there is a chance that the remaining witnesses may come and may be examined. What has happened so far does not show that the prosecution and the Trial Court have been mindful to any meaningful degree about the observations made by this Court on 17-10-1986. ( 5 ) THE learned Govt. Advocate says that there is a chance that the remaining witnesses may come and may be examined. What has happened so far does not show that the prosecution and the Trial Court have been mindful to any meaningful degree about the observations made by this Court on 17-10-1986. I may observe - as I have had occasion to say on a few occasions - whenever the State opposes an application for grant of bail to an under-trial prisoner, during trial it has a corresponding liability to ensure a speedy trial. What is more, the trial Judge has also a similar duty to expedite such a trial from day to day, and to take a personal supervisory interest in the matter of issue of summonses and warrants and fixation of dates of hearing. I am afraid the hope and expectation expressed by this Court on 17-10-1986 seemingly did not activate the prosecution and the Trial Court. ( 6 ) TAKING all these circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that the change in circumstances since 17-10-1986 makes it clear that any further continuance of the applicant as an under-trial prisoner would amount to a sort of custodial punishment for him. I allow the bail application. ( 7 ) THE applicant be released on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C. J. M. Gwalior for his appearance in the trial on the dates now fixed and on other dates. ( 8 ) CERTIFIED copy on payment of usual charges be furnished to the counsel for the applicant during the course of the day. Application allowed. .