JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 1. This is third application for grant of bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on July 9,1993 and, thereafter, second bail application was rejected on May 23, 1994. While rejecting the second bail application it was observed by this Court: " pwWafd izkFkhZ fiNys djhc 14 ekg ls tsy esa gSA vr% v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dks funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k ;Fkk'kh?kz djus dk iz;kl djsa vkSj xokgku dh mifLFkfr izkIr djus ds fy, izHkkoh dne mBk;sA " 2. Inspite of the aforesaid direction, the statement of only one prosecution witness, namely, Amrik Singh, has been recorded so far. On 28th October, 1994, this Court sought an explanation of the concerned Judge as to why the direction of this Court given while deciding the second bail application was not complied with. The explanation of the learned Sessions Judge has been received, which is tagged with this file. He has also sent copies of the order-sheets from 25th July, 1994 to 18th October, 1994. In his explanation the learned Judge has observed that the delay was being caused on account of the prosecuting agency. The prosecution witnesses have not been produced by it, nor they have been served upon. This bail application was listed before this Court on 23.11.94 and I was informed that 28th and 29th November, 1994 was fixed in the trial court for recording the prosecution evidence. I, therefore, adjourned this bail application to be listed on 1st December, 1994, to see if prosecution witnesses are examined on the above dates or not. Unfortunately, the order-sheets of 28th and 29th November, 1994, show that no prosecution witness has been examined on these days. The proceedings, thus, depict a sorry state of affair which is really painful. 3. No doubt, the petitioner is facing trial under sections-304B, I.P.C. i.e. for dowry death of his wife and this Court is always reluctant in granting bail specially, in case where the death is caused due to burning. However, the question is, whether the accused can be kept behind the bars for indefinite period when the prosecuting agency is quite indifferent and does not co-operate in expeditious trial. However, the question is, whether the accused can be kept behind the bars for indefinite period when the prosecuting agency is quite indifferent and does not co-operate in expeditious trial. Not only in this case, but in other cases also, it is the general complaint that the prosecuting agencies do not co-operate for expeditious trial and no steps are taken by them which are essential for a speedy trial. When a Sessions Case commences, it is the duty of the prosecuting agency to produce all the prosecution witnesses and assistance can be sought from the Court to issue summons to the witnesses, but, still the primary duty is always on the prosecuting agency to see that the witnesses are produced in time. The manner in which the prosecuting agencies are functioning in Rajasthan shows that this institution has either completely collapsed or is at the verge of collapsing. No prosecution can be successful unless the prosecuting agency feels its duty and accountability. In this case, more than 21 months have passed since the arrest of the petitioner, but still only one prosecution witness has been examined. When other witnesses shall be examined, is not known and learned Public Prosecutor is also not able to make any statement in this connection. 4. In such state of affairs, this Court is left with no option except to release the petitioner on bail under section-439 Cr.P.G. 5. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner Sohan Lal son of Kishori Lal Meena shall be released on bail, provided, he furnishes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance in that court on all subsequent dates of hearing during trial. The bail shall be subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 6. A copy of this order be sent to the Hon'ble Law Minister, Government of Rajasthan, Home Commissioner, Director General of Police and Director (Prosecution) for information. I hope and trust that the concerned authorities will take proper steps in this direction. *******