JUDGMENT D.S. Bajpai, J. - This application for bail filed by Ishtiaq Hasan Khan has a chequered history inasmuch as the accused applicant filed a bail application (Criminal Misc. Case No. 165 of 1986) which was rejected by order dated 18th September, 1985 passed by Hon'ble Kamleshwar Nath, J. Thereafter another bail application, being second bail application (Criminal Misc. Case No. 3672 of 1985) was filed and the same was again heard by his Lordship Hon'ble Kamleshwar Nath, J. who by order dated 21st January, 1986 rejected the same. 2. It so transpires that at the time when the order dated 21st January, 1986 was passed by Hon'ble Kamleshwar Nath, J. rejecting the said bail application the accused applicant had not instructed his counsel about passing of an order dated 10th Dec. 1985 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3094 of 1985, Criminal Misc. Case No. 3003 of 1985 and Criminal Misc. Case No. 3424 of 1985 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.N. Jha in which a direction had been issued by his Lordship that the Sessions Trial should be completed within three months and if necessary this should be achieved by continuing the trial from day to day. The accused applicant also raised some other pleas and filed a third bail application [Criminal Misc. Case No. 305 (B) of 1986] on 14th February, 1986. This bail application came up before Hon'ble Kamleshwar Nath, J. on 18th March, 1986 and he passed an order to the effect. "..........Ise release Kiya Jata Hai." Thereafter it so transpires that since the case had been released by brother Kamleshwar Nath, J. the accused applicant moved an application on 21st March, 1986 praying "that the above mentioned case i.e. 3rd bail application of the applicant be dismissed as not pressed." This Criminal Misc. Application No. 305 (B) of 1986 came before his Lordship Hon'ble Kamleshwar Nath, J. in the ordinary course on 24th March, 1986 and was allowed as per order on the said application. 3. Application No. 305 (B) of 1986 came before his Lordship Hon'ble Kamleshwar Nath, J. in the ordinary course on 24th March, 1986 and was allowed as per order on the said application. 3. As indicated above the facts brought to the notice by the accused applicant, as had been asserted by his pairokar, not having been brought before the court were sought to be considered by filing a fresh bail application dated 22nd May, 1986 notice of which was given to the Government Advocate on 24th May, 1986 after the affidavit of the pairokar of the accused-applicant having been sworn on 22nd May, 1986 at 3.30 p.m. This bail application [Criminal Misc. Case No. 1320 (B) of 19861 came before me on 3rd June, 1986 when the learned Government Advocate stated that it was a tied up matter with Hon'ble Kamleshwar Nath, J. and therefore it was directed by me to e listed before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kamleshwar Nath. Subsequently, however, an application, dated 5th June, 1986 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1320 (B) of 1986 was filed after notice to the Government Advocate praying for recall of the earlier order dated 3rd June, 1986 on the ground that it was not a tied-up matter of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kamleshwar Nath and that since the matter pertained to liberty of a citizen it required to be heard. It was thereupon directed to be put up for orders on 6th June, 1986. On 6th June, 1986 the Assistant Government Advocate appearing for the State as also Sri G.K. Mehrotra appearing for the complainant, Sri Shahzad Hasan Khan appeared and filed his memo of appearance. The learned counsel for the accused-applicant as also the Assistant Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the complainant were heard at some length and the bail application was directed to come up for further hearing on 7th June, 1986. On 7th June, 1986 the application for recalling the order as also the bail application were heard for a considerable length and a short order on the application for bail admitting the applicant to bail was passed and an order on the request of the learned counsel for the complainant, Sri G.K. Mehrotra, for lea" to appeal to the Supreme Court was also passed. These two orders were passed after recalling the order dated 3rd June, 1986, directing the bail application to be listed before Hon'ble Kamleshwar Nath, J. on which the learned counsel for the parties were heard and the application was disposed of by an order dated 7th June, 1986 passed on the application itself before the two orders indicated above were passed. 4. Coming to the merits of the bail application the most striking thing that has been for the first time brought to the notice of this Court is the order of Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.N. Jha dated 10th December, 1985 passed in Criminal Misc. Case Nos. 3094, 3003 and 3424 of 1985 arising from Crime No. 62 of 1985 in which the accused-applicants Ishtiaq Hasan Khan is also an accused. A true copy of this order has been filed by the applicant as Annexure 5 to the affidavit accompanying the application for bail. A reading of this order indicates that the applications were for transfer and for cancellation of bail of co-accused praying for transferring the case from the court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow to any other court and for cancelling the bail of co-accused as also an application by an accused indicating that the complainant was an influential person likely to get the case decided in his favour resulting in conviction of the accused to which effect he was openly speaking out in public. The learned Judge observed that no case for cancellation of bail of the co-accused was made out and dismissed the application; the application for transfer of the case was also dismissed since the applicant was not present and did not press it. What is pertinent to point out is the observation made by the court as under: "In the course of arguments both the learned counsels desired that criminal cases should be disposed of expeditiously so that the sword of democles does not hangover the heads of accused persons who are facing the trial. In the instant case one of the accused persons has not been admitted to bail, therefore, it is necessary that the trial should be completed. The trial court will bear in mind the statutory principles of expeditious disposal and will leave no stone unturned to dispose of the trial within a very reasonable time say within three months. In the instant case one of the accused persons has not been admitted to bail, therefore, it is necessary that the trial should be completed. The trial court will bear in mind the statutory principles of expeditious disposal and will leave no stone unturned to dispose of the trial within a very reasonable time say within three months. If necessary the court can even proceed day to day in order to finalise the trial .................." 5. This order having been passed on 10th December, 1985, the trial should have been completed by 9th March, 1986 and I am inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant that since the accused-applicant was in jail since 22nd April, 1985 the order dated 10th December 1985 was passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.N. Jha in order to meet the ends of justice since by 21st April, 1986 the accused-applicant had completed one year in judicial custody. The applicant categorically stated in paragraph 14 of the application which is supported by an affidavit: "14. That the complainant is deliberately delaying the trial and for this reason the complainant Shahzad Hasan Khan moved a transfer application and the learned Sessions Judge has transferred the trial from the Court of A.D.J. Ist to Sessions Judge, Lucknow and there is no likelihood of early disposal of the trial. The applicant is in jail since 22nd April, 1985 and he has also ill and is in Jail Hospital since May, 1985." 6. This in itself has not been controverted in the objections filed on behalf of the complainant which I have carefully perused and in which an effort has only been made to postpone the hearing of the application on merits on a technical plea that the matter was a tied up case of Hon'ble Kamleshwar Nath, J., which as stated above, has been found to be without substance. The fact that a transfer application was made by the complainant Shahzad Hasan Khan has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the complainant in his objections and the only effort at this stage is also to seek time to file a counter affidavit. The fact that a transfer application was made by the complainant Shahzad Hasan Khan has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the complainant in his objections and the only effort at this stage is also to seek time to file a counter affidavit. There is no disputed that the trial has been transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge, Lucknow and was to commence from 2nd June, 1986 but it has again been adjourned to some date in July, 1986 as I have been informed by the learned counsel for the applicant and which fact has not been denied by the learned Government Advocate or the learned counsel for the complainant. The proceedings on 2nd June, 1986 took place only for a very short time and nothing can be said to have been done which may amount to start of a Sessions Trial and I am satisfied from the material on record that the complainant has been trying to delay the proceedings. All the co-accused have been admitted to bail except the present applicant. In view of the subsequent direction of Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.N. Jha, in his order dated 10th December, 1985 as indicated above, there are no signs even after about six months for the trial having started in real earnest much less having been completed by 9th March, 1986 which in itself entitles the accused applicant to be enlarged on bail. The salutary principle of criminal law as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India time and again that liberty of citizens should not be jeopardised by keeping the accused persons in jail custody for long periods without trial is a mandate to the courts in India and this Court is equally bound by it. 7. I consider it to be a fit case in which facts, antecedents and circumstances indicate that the accused-applicant should no longer be kept in jail custody and should be admitted to bail. Ultimate acquittal of the accused would not give him back the precious period of 15 months which he has already spent in jail as an under trial besides the fact that the purpose of criminal jurisprudence which is now preventive and correcting would be thwarted making its penal, unreformative and an engine of oppression. 8. Ultimate acquittal of the accused would not give him back the precious period of 15 months which he has already spent in jail as an under trial besides the fact that the purpose of criminal jurisprudence which is now preventive and correcting would be thwarted making its penal, unreformative and an engine of oppression. 8. I accordingly direct that the applicant Ishtiaq Hasan Khan shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing two sureties and a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.