JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor. 2. Though, this is a fourth bail application, but there are some peculiar circumstances on account of which this bail application requires serious consideration. 3. The prosecution case is that a report was lodged at police station Chirawa by Dy. S.P. Gopal Narayan in which it was stated that he had received some secret information to the effect that one person has brought 90 Kg. opium in a Jeep from Chittorgarh and the said opium is lying at the house of co-accused Jagdish S/o Jhabar of village Solana, who does business of opium. As per this report, a raid was made at the house of Jagdish at 6.00 A.M. on April 24, 1990 where seven persons were found sitting. As per the prosecution case, when the police reached there, the principal-accused Jagdish ran away while the remaining six accused persons were arrested and in-front of those six persons plastic bags were lying containing opium. 4. There is no disputed before me that out of the six accused-persons, who were arrested on the spot, the petitioner Bherulal is one of them. It is also not in dispute that out of six persons, three persons, namely, Ram Pratap Ramjilal and Jeevan Ram have been released on bail by this Court on different dates though on different grounds. Ramjilal has been released on bail by this Court on 12/12/1991, while Jeevanram has been released on bail on Aug. 4, 1990. The co-accused-Ram Pratap was released on bail earlier to them. 5. The petitioner had also approached to this Court for grant of his bail, but his application was rejected by this Court on May 28, 1991 with a direction to the trial court to expedite the hearing in the case and to make every efforts to complete the trial within a period of six months. There is no dispute that the trial has not been completed as yet. As intimated to me only two prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in jail for the last 21 months and inspite of the direction by this Court, the trial has not been completed and there is no likelihood that the trial shall be completed in the near future. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in jail for the last 21 months and inspite of the direction by this Court, the trial has not been completed and there is no likelihood that the trial shall be completed in the near future. It was also argued that three co-accused named above, who are similarly circumstanced, have already been released on bail, though on different grounds. According to the learned counsel, in the changed circumstances, the petitioner should also be released on bail. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public prosecutor forcefully opposed the grant of bail of the petitioner on the ground of delay. It was also contended by him that the co-accused have been released on bail on different grounds, as such, the benefit of bail should not been given to the petitioner, who indulged in a social crime. 8. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. It is true that in cases like the present one, the Court should not be liberal in granting bail as the crime is against the Society, but a balance is to be struck keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the accused petitioner is in jail for the last 21 months and inspite of the direction by this Court, the trial has not been concluded and there is no likelihood that the trial shall be concluded in the near future. Only two prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. 9. I have pointed out again and again that in cases accused are in jail, priority should be given for the completion of the trial and there should not be any lapses on the part of the prosecution or on the concerned court in delaying the trial. Such cases should not be adjourned for a long period also. If the witnesses are not present, effective steps should be taken for securing their attendance. 10. It is also a significant fact that co-accused persons have been released on bail though they were also arrested on the spot alongwith the petitioner, though on different grounds. But, the fact remains that after the bail was granted to them, they have been attending the court and no attempt was made by them to mis-use the liberty of bail so granted to them. But, the fact remains that after the bail was granted to them, they have been attending the court and no attempt was made by them to mis-use the liberty of bail so granted to them. The petitioner was also given a chance when he was released on interim bail on the death of his mother. He surrendered himself after the expiry of the period of interim bail. 11. Thus, taking the totality of the circumstances as indicated above, I am of the view that the petitioner should now be released on bail under section-439 Cr.P.C. 12. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner Bherulal S/o Shrideva be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand only) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen 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. The bail shall be subject to the following condition:- 13. That the petitioner shall not repeat similar offence in future. *******