JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. 2. This is IVth bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C., but it has been filed in the changed circumstances and it needs consideration. 3. The accused-petitioner, along with other co-accused persons is facing trial in Sessions Case No. 2/93 pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 3, Kota and the offence is under section 302 I.P.C. along with other offences. He was arrested on 9th August 1992 and since then he is in jail and as such, he is in custody for the last about two years. 4. The co-accused, Shiv Raj Singh had moved bail application No. 5910/93 and the same was disposed of on 5.1.94. While rejecting the bail application the following order was passed: "Therefore, at this stage, the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated. Since the trial has commenced, I expect that the trial Judge shall make every effort to conclude the trial on an early date. The petitioner is in jail for the last 18 months and, as such, I think it proper to give a direction to the trial court that every effort should be made to conclude the trial within six months from today, and if necessary, evidence may be recorded day today." 5. Third bail application No. 89/94, filed by the petitioner was listed and decided by this Court on 25.2.94 and the following order was passed : "The petitioner has moved this third application for grant of bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. The bail application of the co-accused Shiv Raj Singh was decided by this Court on 5.1.94. While rejecting his bail application, a direction was given by this Court to conclude the trial within six months from the dale of order. The six months time was going to expire on July 4,1994. Mr. Rajawat, appearing for the complainant submits that all the main witnesses have been examined and only formal witnesses have to be examined and that, so far the prosecution is concerned, the prosecution witnesses will be examined, much before the time given by the Court. The six months time was going to expire on July 4,1994. Mr. Rajawat, appearing for the complainant submits that all the main witnesses have been examined and only formal witnesses have to be examined and that, so far the prosecution is concerned, the prosecution witnesses will be examined, much before the time given by the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to withdraw this bail application, but he wants a firm order from the Court that the trial Court should conclude the trial by July 4, 1994. The bail application is dismissed as withdrawn. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court." 6. The above orders make it clear that the learned counsel for the complainant, on the one hand, had given assurance to this Court that all the prosecution witnesses will be examined much before the time given by the Court vide order dated 5.1.194 in the bail application of Shivraj Singh. In view of the order passed by this Court in Shivraj Singh's bail application and the assurance given by the learned counsel for the complainant the counsel for the petitioner withdrew the bail application, but he wanted a firm order from this Court that the trial Court should conclude the trial by 4th of July, 1994 as per directions in Shivraj Singh's case. This request was found to be reasonable and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial by July 4, 1994. In view of this, the third bail application was withdrawn by the learned counsel. 7. The order-sheets of the trial court after 5.2.94 have been produced before me. A look of the order-sheets shows that neither the prosecuting agency nor the trial Judge took the order in its letter and spirit and no effort was made by him to conclude the trial within the specified time. As per the assurance the witnesses were not produced by the prosecuting agency and as per the direction, the learned trial Judge also did not take the case as was expected from him. When a clear direction was given to the trial court in Shivraj Singh's case to take the case day today if necessary, there was hardly any reason that the trial would not have been concluded, provided, the investigating agency had also co-operated in producing the witnesses. 8. Be that as it may. When a clear direction was given to the trial court in Shivraj Singh's case to take the case day today if necessary, there was hardly any reason that the trial would not have been concluded, provided, the investigating agency had also co-operated in producing the witnesses. 8. Be that as it may. An accused cannot be kept behind the bar for the lapses on the part of the prosecuting agency or the concerned trial court. Now, it is no more in dispute that it is a fundamental right of the accused to have expeditious trial, specially, in a case when he is in custody. Again and again, it has been made clear by this Court that whenever a direction is given, it is to be complied with its letter and spirit and if some difficulty comes, then the request should be made at proper time by the concerned person or the Court. In the instant case, no such request was ever made to this Court either by the prosecuting agency or by the concerned Court. The orders of this Court have some sanctity and they are meant to be complied with. 9. An affidavit has been filed by Shri Sangram Sing Solanki, Advocate, to this effect that he had made request to the trial Judge not to grant long adjournments so that the trial may be concluded within the specified time given by the Court, but the prayer was rejected, saying that there are other cases and the case shall be taken as per his cause list. Though, in the affidavit, the learned Advocate has not given any date when such request was made, but still if such affidavit comes, I feel it necessary to seek explanation from the concerned Presiding Officer. 10. So far as this bail application is concerned, this affidavit does not help in any manner to the prosecution, because, the accused cannot be penalised for the lapses either on the part of the prosecuting agency or the Court. 11. One more submission made is that on 10th June, 1994, the accused persons who were in jail, were not deliberately produced in the Court by the Jail Superintendent. This argument has no substance, because, I do not find any material on record that any complaint was made by the complainant or any other person to the Court concerned. 12. 11. One more submission made is that on 10th June, 1994, the accused persons who were in jail, were not deliberately produced in the Court by the Jail Superintendent. This argument has no substance, because, I do not find any material on record that any complaint was made by the complainant or any other person to the Court concerned. 12. The net result of the above discussion is that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail simply on the ground of delay without going into the merits of the case. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner had also argued that the name of the petitioner does not find place in the FIR which was given by one of the deceased, Himmat Singh, but his fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the complainant. 13. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail provided, he furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,(XX)/- with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance in that court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when he is called upon to do so till the conclusion of the trial. 14. The bail shall be subject to the following conditions : (1) That the petitioner shall not leave State of Rajasthan without prior permission of the Court; (2) That he shall not repeat any offence in future; 15. If any of the conditions is violated, it shall be open for the trial court to cancel the bail without making reference to this Court. 16. The Registry shall seek explanation from the concerned Presiding Officer as to why the order of the Court dated 25.2.94 in third bail application No. 89/94, filed by the petitioner and the order dated 5.1.94 were not complied by him in its letter and spirit. He should also send reply to the affidavit filed by Shri Sangram Singh, Advocate, within three weeks and the same be placed before me. *******