JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is facing trial under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act, which is pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ajmer. As per prosecution case, on May 20, 1989, Maruti Car bearing registration NO. PA1 5266 was searched on Ajmer-Kota-Ncemuch Road, and contraband opium weighing 70.100 Kgs. was recovered which was concealed behind the flap-boards of the four gates of the vehicle. The petitioner was one of the occupants in that car. 2. I need not go into the facts of the case in detail, as the earlier application filed by the petitioner was rejected by me on 23.11.1991 in which all the facts have been given. The said application was dismissed on merits. 3. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 3 years and the trial has not been completed as yet. The learned counsel has read over the order-sheet of the last six months of the Trial Court. A perusal of the same reveals that the prosecution witnesses are not coming for evidence. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that of the prosecution is not keen to complete the trial within a reasonable time, then the petitioner should not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period. 4. On the contrary, Mr. Balwada, the learned counsel for the department, submits that trial has already commenced and as many as four prosecution witnesses have been examined. According to Mr. Balwada, the witnesses examined by now have implicated the petitioner in the commission of the offence. He further argued that the matter relates to transporting and possession of huge quantity of contraband opium. Mr. Balwada pointed out that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he shall not be available to face the trial and the chances of his absconding cannot be ruled out. 5. The contentions made by both the learned counsel have force but the Court has to strike a balance between the two extreme situations. No doubt an accused had a fundamental right of expeditious trial but he cannot claim to be released on bail in grave cases like the present one, keeping in view the provisions of Section 37 of the Act. No doubt an accused had a fundamental right of expeditious trial but he cannot claim to be released on bail in grave cases like the present one, keeping in view the provisions of Section 37 of the Act. Similarly an accused cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite period because the prosecution does not take interest in producing the witnesses. The petitioner is in Jail for the last 3 years, and if, the prosecution witnesses are not coming to give evidence or the prosecution is not vigilant to produce them, the petitioner can claim to be released on bail even in serious and grave cases. 6. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case I give a last opportunity to the prosecution to examine and its witnesses within 3 months from today. If it fails to produce all its witnesses within 3 months, then the petitioner shall be released on bail by the Trial Court on furnishing bail bonds and on such terms and conditions to be determined and imposed by the Trial Court keeping in view that petitioner may be available to face the trial. The petition is disposed of accordingly. *******