Judgment N. L. TIBREWAL, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH it is unusual that this Court is granting bail to the petitioner on his 5th application but the subsequent circumstances do warrant to grant bail to the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has made his submissions on several points including the merit of case. However, I would not like to say anything so far the merit of case is concerned, as this aspect was examined by this Court in the earlier bail applications. ( 3 ) TWO main submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, other than merit of the case. The first submission is that the petitioner was arrested on 30. 6. 1993 and about 21 months have passed since then but still the trial could not be concluded inspite of a direction of this Court for expediting the trial vide order dated 2. 12. 1993. The last witness was examined on 23. 7. 1994. Since then no further progress has been made and not a single witness has been examined for one reason or the other. Another submission of the learned counsel is that all other accused are on bail and it is doubtful that the petitioner is the author of the fatal injury to the deceased. In the same sequence it was also contended by the learned counsel that the accused party was in possession of the land in question and there were judgments from the revenue courts in this regard and the petitioner has also sustained injuries including grievous injuries in the same incident. The last submission of the learned counsel was that statement of doctor belies the prosecution case that the deceased could have sustained injury at the end of petitioner from a distance of 30 feet. ( 4 ) AS already stated earlier, I am not inclined either to examine or make any comment so far merit of the case is concerned. However, I have been deeply impressed by the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is in custody for the last 21 months or so but the trial has not made any progress after 23. 7. 1994 and the learned trial Court has not shown that anxiety which was expected from it. Consequently, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr. 7. 1994 and the learned trial Court has not shown that anxiety which was expected from it. Consequently, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr. P. C. on certain conditions. ( 5 ) IT is, therefore, directed that the accused petitioner Ram Niwas sb Shri Ramji Lal r/o Village Sunderpur Distt. Dholpur, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a 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 with the stipulation to appear in that Court or any other Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial/investigation, as the case may be. ( 6 ) THE bail shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court, and (ii) that the petitioner shall maintain peace and be of good behaviour during the trial in this case. If any of the conditions is violated by the petitioner at any point of time, the trial Court shall be free to cancel the bail order without reference to this Court. Bail Application allowed.