JUDGMENT 1. 1. This second bail application has been filed on the ground that in the instant case, the report has been lodged against eight accused persons and similar acts have been assigned against all the accused persons. The deceased sustained eight injuries and as per post mortem report the injured died due to haemorrhage, shock as a result of multiple steb wounds over the body. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that only one injury has been assigned to each of the petitioners which are alleged to have been inflicted on the chest and abdomen. But, in view of the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report, specific overt act allegedly assigned to the petitioners is contradictory. Learned counsel added that the act assigned to the petitioners is, therefore, similar to that of co-accused persons who have already been released on bail, and in these circumstances the petitioners are also entitled to be released on bail. It has further been contended that the petitioners are in custody for about a year and yet the trial has not been concluded; number of witnesses are yet to be examined and there is no (sic) possibility that the trial is not likely to conclude in near future. 2. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand opposed the bail application and submitted written arguments. His main thrust is that no change has occurred after decision of the first bail application. 3. I have considered the points raised by the learned counsel. It is admitted position that the petitioners are languishing in jail for last about more than one year, only five or six witnesses have still been examined by the prosecution and a number of witnesses are yet to be examined; the case was fixed to 2nd August, 1989 for recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but as informed by the Earned counsel for the petitioners, none of the prosecution witnesses turned up on that day and the case was adjourned for a month. It is thus clear that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. It is settled principle of law that speedy trial is a fundamental right of a person who cannot be kept behind bar for an indefinite period without establishing his guilt. It is thus clear that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. It is settled principle of law that speedy trial is a fundamental right of a person who cannot be kept behind bar for an indefinite period without establishing his guilt. It is also admitted fact that five of the accused have already been released on bail against whom allegation of inflicting injury on the person of the deceased has been stated in the F. I. R. as well as in the statement before the trial court. So, in view of the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report and the act assigned to the individual accused persons, I am of the view that the case against the petitioners is similar to those of the accused who have already been released on bail. 4. For reasons stated above, this bail application is, therefore, allowed. Petitioners, namely, Babu s/o Kalu & Abdul Waheed, be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation to appear in that court as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against them in this case.Bail granted. *******