JUDGMENT 1. - This is the third bail application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail under Section 439, Cr. P.C. in Sessions Case No. 41/1986, arising out of FIR No. 162 of 1986, which was registered for an offence under Sections 302, 149, 148, 147 to 324 IPC. 2. The first bail application was dismissed vide order dated 12th January, and it was observed that the petitioner may move another bail application after some time when eye-witnesses are examined by the trial court. The petitioner moved the second bail application contending that three eye-witnesses had ken examined and no case against the petitioner was made out. This Court tide order dated 10th September, 1987, dismissed the second bail application, but it the same time observed as follows:- "Looking to the above circumstances, the learned trial Court is expected to complete the trial as far as possible within a period of six months., 3. Now, the third bail application has been moved. It is submitted by the accused-petitioner that already more than 10 months have passed, but still. Jibe trial is not over. After passing of the order on the second bail application only three eye-witnesses have been examined so far. While dismissing the second bail application, this Court observed that the petitioner is a young boy of 18 years of age and that the trial should be speedy one as expeditious trial is an integral and essential part of fundamental rights to life and liberty enshrined tinder Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners name was not disclosed in the FIR and that no identification parade was conducted during the investigation. It is also submitted that out of seven accused, six have already been enlarged on bail and the petitioner is the only person to whom bail has not been granted. 4. Shri Naqvi learned counsel for the petitioner, relics on Durga Lal v. State of Rajasthan ( 1983 RLR 381 ) , wherein this Court observed that if while injecting the earlier bail application, a direction is given by the High Court that the trial should be completed within a particular period and if the trial Court has not completed the trial within that period, the petitioner would be entitled to the grant of bail. In that case, a direction was given to the trial Court to complete the trial within two months and the trial Court had not completed the trial and when the trial was not completed, the petitioner approached the High Court ana the High Court enlarged the accused-petitioner on bail. On the same point, Shri Naqvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on Pema Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1986 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 102) . 5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the proposition of law laid down in the above referred cases I am of the opinion that since the directions given by this Court have not been complied with, at such, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. The bail application is allowed and, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 13,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5.000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City for his appearance before that Court as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of trial against him. *******