JUDGMENT 1. - Though this is third bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C., but the subsequent events after rejection of the second application compel me to consider this bail application filed by the petitioner Sohan. 2. The petitioner was arrested on 7th July, 1991 and more than 22' months have passed since his detention, but the trial in the case is proceeding with snail's speed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has read-over order sheets of the proceedings of last 12 months of the trial court and a perusal of the same demonstrate as the prosecuting agency was having accountability towards the case. No attempt was made by it to produce the prosecution witnesses in court in time to get the trial completed on an early day. Only four witnesses have been examined so far, and on most of the dates of hearing, the prosecution witnesses have not appeared. It also appears that the Trial Court was equally insensible to see that the trial is completed expeditiously. 3. It is now well settled that a speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused and an accused cannot be kept behind the bar as an under trial prisoner for an indefinte period. In such a sorry state of affairs, the question is whether the petitioner- accused should be kept behind in jail for an indefinte period when neither the prosecuting agency is vigilent to get the trial completed expeditiously, nor the trial court is sensitive to take firm steps to get the presence of the prosecution witnesses ? The answer is 'No'. 4. It is my general experience that in the State of Rajasthan more or less similar situation is going on. Few days ago, I had an occasion to decide a bail application in a murder case of Kota in which I found that neither the prosecuting agency nor the police officers were keen to produce the witnesses in court despite the fact that the trial Judge made repeated request to the highest police officer of the area to get the witnesses served out and the trial was not completed in 35 months even. I also fail to understand whether the Director of Prosecution is also vigilent or not to see that trials in sessions cases, in which the accused are in jail, are completed without any delay. I also fail to understand whether the Director of Prosecution is also vigilent or not to see that trials in sessions cases, in which the accused are in jail, are completed without any delay. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has not brought to my notice that any steps were ever taken by the Director of Prosecution in this connection. The entire system requires a complete re-thinking and if necessary, a complete overhauling. It is high time for the concerned authorities to take steps in this direction, before the people may loose faith in the system. 5. Presently, I have no option but to release the petitioner on bail in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Consequently, I direct that the petitioner Sohan son of Padma shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousands) with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 10,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the trial court to appear before it or any other court during the pendency of trial against him. 7. A copy of this order be sent to the Law Secretary, the Advisor to the Hon'ble Governor having portfolio of Law Department to take necessary action to save the system. A copy of this order be also placed in personal file of the concerned Trial Judge. A photostat/cyclostyled copy of this order be also circulated to all District & Sessions Judges/Additional District & Sessions Judge for their information.Bail Granted. *******