JUDGMENT 1. - Though this is fourth application under section 439 Cr.P.C., but there are some special circumstances which required consideration for the disposal of this application. 2. In this case, the petitioner and nine other accused are facing trial for various offences, including the one under section 302 I.P.C for committing murder of one Jagdish. The incident had taken place on a dispute about some land. In the said incident, two of the accused persons had also sustained injuries, including grievous injuries. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner was arrested on 12th Aug, 1990. Other accused were also arrested but they have been released on bail either by the Sessions Court or by this Court. Only the accused petitioner, out of the ten accused, is in jail. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no progress has been made in the trial of the case, though more than 19 months have passed since the arrest of the petitioner. Counsel argued that on account of any act of the petitioner this delay has not been caused. It was also submitted that other co-accused persons had also assaulted to the deceased-Jagdish as per the prosecution case and they have been released on bail. It was then submitted that some of the accused persons have also sustained a number of injuries, including grievous injuries and there is a fair possibility of accepting the defence plea of right of private defence of person and property. 5. On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor opposed this application and argued that there is no justification to release the petitioner on bail after allowing this fourth application. So far the merits of the case is concerned, the same have been considered by this Court in the earlier bail applications, as such, detailed discussions is not needed. The learned public prosecutor is not in a position to controvert the fact that the petitioner is in jail for the last more than 19 months and no satisfactory progress has been made in the trial of the case. The learned public prosecutor is not in a position to controvert the fact that the petitioner is in jail for the last more than 19 months and no satisfactory progress has been made in the trial of the case. This application was listed for hearing before this Court on 11-3-1992 and the following order was passed:- " ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd bl ckr dk irk yxkdj vnkyr dks voxr djk;saxs fd V~k;y esa D;k fLFkfr gS vkSj ;fn pktZ Qzse ugha gq, gSa ;k xokgku ds c;ku ugha fy, x, gSa rks blds D;k dkj.k gSaA ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn vxyh rkjh[k rd ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd bl ckr dks Li"V djus esa vleFkZ jgrs gSa rks ;g ekuk tk,xk fd eqdnes dh V~k;y dh nsjh esa eqyfte dk dksbZ gkFk ugha gSA bl izkFkZuk&i= dks fnukad 23-3-92 dks U;k;ky; esa yxk;k tkosA " Thereafter, on 23rd March, 1992 the matter was adjourned for two days on the request of the Public Prosecutor to supply the information on the next date. The time was allowed. The time was allowed. The matter was listed on 25 March 1992 and the following order was passed on this date:- " fnukad 11-3-92 dks ;ksx; yksd vfHk;kstd dks ;g vkns'k fn;k x;k Fkk fd os vnkyr dks bl lwpuk ls voxr djkosa fd fopkj.k esa D;k fLFkfr gS vkSj pktZ Qzse ugha gq, gSa ;k xokgku ds c;ku ugha fy, x, gSa rks blds D;k dkj.k gSA mDr vkns'k esa ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k x;k Fkk fd ;fn vxyh rkjh[k rd yksd vfHk;kstd bl ckr dks Li"V djus esa vleFkZ jgrs gSa rks ;g ekuk tk,xk fd eqdnes dh V~k;y dh nsjh esa eqyfte dk dksbZ gkFk ugha gSA rRi'pkr ;g izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 23-3-92 dks U;k;ky; esa yxkA fnuakd 11-3-92 dks ds0,u0 'kekZ yksd vfHk;kstd mifLFkr FksA fnukad 23-3-92 dks Jh ch0,y0 voLFkh yksd vfHk;kstd mifLFkr FksA Jh ch0,y0 voLFkh us bl rkjh[k ij mijksDr lwpuk ds lEcU/k esa vnkyr dks voxr djkus esa viuh vleFkZrk izdV dh vkSj ;g dgk fd mUgsa fnukad 11-3-92 ds vkns'k dk iw.kZr% irk ugha Fkk vr% nks fnu dk le; vkSj fn;k tkosA muds fuosnu ij nks fnu dk le; vkSj fn;k x;kA vkt Jh ikjhd yksd vfHk;kstd mifLFkr gSa vkSj mudk Hkh dguk gS fd os vnkyr }kjk ekaxh x;h lwpuk ds ckjs esa dqN Hkh dgus esa vleFkZ gSa vkSj bl lEcU/k esa os irk yxk;saxs vkSj os Lo;a ;k vU; tks bl dsl esa mifLFkr gksrs gSa] pkgh x;h lwpuk ds lEcU/k esa vnkyr dks voxr djk;saxsA ;|fi le; nsus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gS fQj Hkh bl ckr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, fd izkFkhZ ds f[kykQ 302 dk tqeZ vkjksfir fd;k x;k gS] ,d fnu dk le; nsuk mfpr gSA ;gka Li"V fd;k tkrk gS tks Hkh yksd vfHk;kstd bl dsl esa dy mifLFkr gksrk gS og lEcfU/kr lwpuk ls bl vknyr dks voxr djk,xk vkSj ;fn fdlh Hkh dkj.k ls vleFkZ gksrk gS rks vkxs le; ugha fn;k tk,xk vkSj izkFkZuk i= dks lqudj r; dj fn;k tkosxkA vr% bl izkFkZuk i= dks fnukad 26-3-92 dks U;k;ky; esa yxk;k tkosA " On the request of the learned public prosecutor, one day was again granted to give the requisite information as the petitioner is facing trial under section-302 IPC. It was, however, made clear that in case the public prosecutor fails to furnish the requisite information, the application shall be decided without granting further time. It was, however, made clear that in case the public prosecutor fails to furnish the requisite information, the application shall be decided without granting further time. The application, was, thereafter, listed on 26th March, 1992. On this date, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present as a section of lawyers was on strike for the reasons best known to them. Hence, the application has been listed today for disposal.Some of the facts relating the present case are not in dispute. The petitioner is facing trial under section-302 IPC alongwith nine other co-accused persons, who have been released on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 12-8-1990 and more than 19 months have passed since his arrest. Some of the accused have also sustained injuries and a cross case is also pending which will be decided alongwith the present trial. It is also not in dispute that no progress in the trial of the case has been made and the trial is likely to be further delayed as both the cross-cases have to be decided simultaneously by the same Judge. Inspite of the various orders of this Court, the learned public prosecutor has failed to furnish the requisite information demanded by this Court and there is no material on the record that the petitioner was at fault in the delay of the trial.It no doubt true that the delay in the trial itself may not be a ground to release the accused on bail who is facing trial in a serious case. However, the matter has to be considered and decided in the light of all the facts of each case.After having given my careful consideration to all the facts and circumstances, including the delay in the trial. I am of the view that it is just and proper to release the petitioner now on bail under section-439 Cr.P.C.It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner - Abdul Wahid S/o Umardaraj be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance in the said court or any other court on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial in this case. *******