JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, no doubt, has moved successive application, but could not succeed earlier. The petitioner was arrested in FIR No. 515/90 registered at PS-Kotwali, Alwar sometime in the month of Aug., 1990 and since then about 21 months have passed. He is facing trial along with other co-accused persons, out of which ail have been released on bail except the petitioner and one co-accused Rishi Pal. On 3rd Oct., 1991, while rejecting the sixth bail application of the petitioner, a direction was given to the trial court to record the statements of Sunil Chowdhary and Narendra Sharma, the alleged eye witnesses of the incident on the next date of hearing. A further direction was given that in any case, their statements be recorded within four months from the date of the said order. However, it appears that the statements of these two witnesses could not be recorded as per the direction of the Court. Thereafter, during the pendency of this bail application, on 3rd March, 1992, : the following order was passed:- "I have been informed that the next date in the trial court is March 10, 1992. This Court has directed the trial court to record the statements of the witnesses, Sunil Chowdhary and Narendra Sharma, but till now their 5 statements have not been recorded for one reason or other. Now, the trial court should make every effort to record their statements prefecably within two months. The bail application be listed after two months. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court." 2. I have been informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that out of the above two witnesses viz. Sunil Chowdhary and Narendra Sharma, only one witness Sunil Chouwdhary has been examined and he has not supported the prosecution case, still the statement of Narendra Sharma could not be recorded inspite of the repeated directions given by this Court as stated above. 3. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in jail for the last more than 21 months and inspite of the repeated directions of this Court, even the statements of two eye witnesses were not recorded in time. 3. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in jail for the last more than 21 months and inspite of the repeated directions of this Court, even the statements of two eye witnesses were not recorded in time. He further submits that for the lapses of the prosecution, the accused cannot be kept behind the bar for an uncertain period He also argued that the co-accused have been released on bail against whom there was also an allegation that they assaulted the deceased Bhupendra Rawat. According to the learned counsel, the main accused in this case is Rishi Pal Nagar and he is not before this Court. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor though opposes the bail application but is unable to explain as to why the statement of Narendra Sharma could not be recorded inspite of the specific direction given by this Court. He is also not in a position to state when it shall be possible to produce Narendra Sharma for his statement. 5. It is no doubt true that the bail application of the petitioner has been rejected earlier on merits and I do not find any ground to release him on bail on merits. But, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bar for an uncertain period for the lapses or inaction on the part of the prosecution. Even the statements of two alleged eye witnesses could not be recorded inspite of the specific directions have been given by this Court again and again. Out of the two eye witnesses, only one has been examined who has not supported the prosecution case. 6. In such a sorry state of affairs, I have no option but to release the petitioner on bail. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner Anil Kumar Sharma s/o. Sh. Sant Prasad Sharma, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. twenty thousands) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the trial court, to appear before it whenever called upon to do so be released on bail. *******