ISRANI, J.—This IV bail application has been filed by the petitioner, who is charged to have committed offence under section 302 IPC. 2. It is pointed out by Shri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner that F.I.R. was lodged on 10. 7. 1987 and the petitioner was arrested on 23. 11. 1987. His first bail application was dismissed while making observation that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the said order should be examined within a period of three months and that thereafter the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court again. The second bail application was dismissed on 4-5-1988. In this application it was observed by this Court that the trial court has not taken care to see that the witnesses are examined within time as directed by this Court. It was again directed that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the order be examined within three months and the petitioners were given liberty to approach this Court thereafter. The third bail application was filed on 28. 10. 1988. In this application the evidence of the eye-witnesses was considered and the bail application was rejected without causing any prejudice to the case of either of the parties on merits. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the trial is proceeding at a snails pace which is evident from the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 25 months and out of 22 prosecution witnesses, only 11 have been exami-ned so far. The learned counsel has filed certified copies of the order sheets of the trial court from 18. 12. 81 to 18. 12. 88 when the case was adjourned to 5. 2. 1990. It is, therefore, submitted that keeping in view the protracted trial, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 4. It is submitted by Shri Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor that the direction of the Court given that at least one date should be fixed for every week was only regarding the examining the eye-witnesses, so far as the names had been mentioned while rejecting the second/third bail application. Thereafter no specific direction was given. He prays that time of three months be granted to complete the prosecution evidence. 5. A bare perusal of the orders of the trial court produced, shows that the prosecution agency has been conducting the case carelessly and trial is proceeding at snails pace. On 16.1.1989, 17. 1. Thereafter no specific direction was given. He prays that time of three months be granted to complete the prosecution evidence. 5. A bare perusal of the orders of the trial court produced, shows that the prosecution agency has been conducting the case carelessly and trial is proceeding at snails pace. On 16.1.1989, 17. 1. 1989, and 18. 1. 89, no witness of prosecution was present. Thereafter the case was posted for 8, 9 and 10.03.1989. However, no summons were issued from office of the Court and, therefore, no witness was present on 8. 3. 1989. Thereafter a case was posted for 19 to 22 April, 1989. On 19-4-1989 one witness P.W. 9 was examined and no other witness was present. On 20-4-1989, one witness Ram Narayan was present but was not examined. On 21-4-89, no witness was present and on 22-4-1989. Additional S. P. was present but he was given-up by the prosecution. Thereafter the case was posted to 15th to 17th June 1989. No witness was present on 15th and 16.06.1989. On 17.06.1989, one witness Nathu Singh was present but was not examined by the prosecution. Thereafter case was adjourned to 5.07.1989, but no witness was present. Again the case was adjourned to 24.07.1989, on which date also no witness was present. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 24th Aug. 1989, when P.W. 10 was examined but no other witness was present. The case was then adjourned to 26-9-1989 but no prosecution witness was present. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 20-11-1989, when no witness was present. Again the case was adjourned to 18-12-1989, when two witnesses were produced but the accused-persons could not be brought from the jail as no guards were available for bringing them. The case was thereafter adjourned to 5-2-1990. This clearly shows that the trial court also has no control over the proceedings of the case and no effort was made to secure the presence of the witnesses even though the petitioner is behind the bars. On several dates the prosecution failed to produce any witness. The trial court has been casually giving long dates even after the period of one month or even more. On several dates the prosecution failed to produce any witness. The trial court has been casually giving long dates even after the period of one month or even more. When the accused person is behind the bar, it is duty of the trial court to make all efforts to see that the trial proceeds at reasonable fast pace so that the accused-persons, who are considered to be innocent till proved guilty do not remain behind the bars for any time then absolutely necessary. The right to live and liberty is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and the liberty of the person, who even may be an accused person, cannot be curtailed unless the circumstances so require. When a person is an accused of a criminal offence and is behind bar, \ the least that is expected from a judicial Court is to see that the trial court proceeds at a reasonable pace so that the liberty of the accused person is not curtailed unnecessarily for a long time. 6. In this case the accused petitioner is behind bars since 25 months and still the prosecution has examined only 11 witnesses out of 22 witnesses, they want to produce. Even when the witnesses are present in Court, have not been examined and one such witness who is to be given up has been unnecessarily summoned and thereafter given-up when appeared in Court, which shows the casual approach of the trial court and the prosecution agency in wasting the time and prolonging the trial. 7. In these circumstances, this bail-application is allowed and the petitioner Gyan Prakash is granted bail provided he furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with stipulation to appear in that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so.