JUDGMENT 1. - Both these applications relate to First Information No.231/1990 P.S. Deeg, as such, they may be disposed of by a common order.The accused-petitioners are facing trial in the aforesaid criminal case alongwith 32 other accused persons. The FIR was lodged by one Fatte S/o Daryav Singh on 17th Aug. 1990. 2. From the side of the Complainant party, one Ramjilal @ Ramji had sustained pellet injuries which resulted in his death. Both the accused petitioners were arrested on Sept. 20, 1990. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the place of incident is an agri field which was in the possession of the accused persons where they had sowed their crop. According to the learned counsel, a revenue suit is also pending with regard to the land in question in the court of S.D.O. Deeg. The learned counsel argued that the members of the Complainant party were agressor, in as much as, they stacked on the accused persons with deadly weapons, including guns causing injuries to, number of accused persons. According to the learned counsel, some of the accused persons have also sustained pellet injuries from gun fires. It was also argued that the accused persons are in jail for the last 19 months or so, but no progress has been made the trial of the case as yet. The learned counsel submitted that even the case has not been committed to the court of sessions for trial, and as such, there is no possibility of the completion of the trial on an early date. It was also argued by the learned counsel that while rejecting the application on 4th July, 1991, this Court had given direction to complete the trial expeditiously within six months.On the other hand, the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the Complainant opposed the applications. The learned counsel for the Complainant also argued that cognizance was taken against some of the accused persons who were left out by the police and the delay was caused as these accused persons had filed a revision petition against the order of taking cognizance. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the above submissions. Some of the facts are not in dispute. The incident took place in a field and it appears that members of both the parties have sustained injuries, including pellet injuries. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the above submissions. Some of the facts are not in dispute. The incident took place in a field and it appears that members of both the parties have sustained injuries, including pellet injuries. The accused persons were arrested on Sept. 20, 1990 and about 19 months have passed, but still the trial of the case has not commenced as yet. Both the cross-cases have to be decided simultaneously and there is no possibility that the trial is likely to be completed very soon. 5. In a similar situation, in S.B. Cr. Misc. IVth bail application No. 298/1992 (decided on 2-4-1992), I have released the accused on bail though it was a fourth bail application. It is a right of the accused to claim expeditious trial of a criminal case, especially when he is in jail. I have observed again and again that the accused persons cannot be kept behind the bar for an indefinite period without any fault on their part.Though, the earlier applications of the petitioners were rejected on merits by this Court, but this fact is not disputed that some members of the accused party have also sustained injuries, including pellet injuries. A revenue suit is also pending with regard to the land in question and I have been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Jamabandi of the land in question is in the name of the accused persons. 6. Thus, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances narrated above, I am of the view that the accused petitioners be also released on bail under section 439 Criminal Procedure Code.It is, therefore, directed that the accused-petitioners Vishambher S/o Sh. Roop Singh and Raman S/o Sh. Jasmat be released on bail provided each of them 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 their 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 or inquiry in this case. *******