JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers made available to me on record. 2. This case depicts as to how the learned trial Judge, has proceeded with the trial in a casual manner being wholly un-mindful of the fact that the petitioner Rameshwar is in custody for the last ten months and a direction was given by this Court to record the statement of the injured as a first witness. 3. The petitioner is facing trial alongwith nine other co- accused in Sessions Case arising from First Information Report No. 97/1994 registered at Police Station, Shahjahapur, Distt. Alwar. The case is pending for trial in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bahror. The first bail-application filed by the petitioner and co-accused Rohitashva was rejected by the Court on 29th July, 1994 as the matter was under investigation and the learned counsel for the Petitioners wanted to argue the case after filing of charge-sheet. After filing of the charge-sheet, second bail application came to be disposed of by this court on 2nd November, 1994. While granting bail to the co-accused Rohitashva, a liberty was given to the petitioner to move fresh application before the trial- court after recording the statement of injured Satveer. The concerned Magistrate was also directed to complete committal proceedings as early as possible. A copy of that order was sent to the concerned trial-Court, as well as to the concerned Magistrate. The third bail application moved by the petitioner before this Court was again rejected on December 19, 1994 with a liberty to move fresh application after the statement of injured Satveer was recorded. Though the statement of injured Satveer has not been recorded as yet but the petitioner has now moved this IVth bail-application, presumably, for the reason that the trial Court is proceeding with the trial of the case in a most casual manner. On March 23, 1995 when the bail application was listed in Court a direction was given to record statement of the injured Satveer without any further delay and the trial-Court was also directed to send a report in this regard, so as to reach before this Court on the next date of hearing of the bail-application i.e. April 17, 1995. On March 23, 1995 when the bail application was listed in Court a direction was given to record statement of the injured Satveer without any further delay and the trial-Court was also directed to send a report in this regard, so as to reach before this Court on the next date of hearing of the bail-application i.e. April 17, 1995. From the record, it appears that no report from the trial-court has been received, so far as no such report is tagged with the file of the case. 4. Mr. Dhankar, learned counsel for the petitioner read-out various order-sheets of the trial-court to lay emphasis that the trial-court is proceeding with the trial of the case in a casual manner. From the order-sheet dated 7th November, 1994, it appears that it was first date after commitment of the case, but the next date for arguments to frame charge was fixed as- 6th January, 1995. On 6th January, 1995, arguments for framing charge were not heard as time was sought by the counsel for the accused. Therefore, next date was fixed as 24th January, 1995. On that day accused Rameshwar was not produced in Court as he was not brought by the police guard and next date was fixed as 8th February, 1995. Again the. case was adjourned on the same ground and next date was fixed on 17th February, for arguments for framing charge. The order-sheet of 17th February, shows that arguments were heard for framing charge and March 2, was fixed for orders. On March 2, the order was not pronounced and March 13, was fixed as next date for pronouncement of order. The order-sheet of 2nd March, speaks that the order on charge could not be dictated as the Court remained busy in recording statements in Sessions Cases. On March 13, again the order could not be pronounced for the reason that Stenographer of the Court was on leave and the order could not be dictated. On the next date i.e. March 28, the charges were framed against the accused persons. Mr. Dhankar, further pointed-out that on 10th April, the matter was taken-up by the trial-court, perhaps in view of the order passed by this Court on March 28, 1995 and 12th April, 1995 was fixed and summons were issued to the concerned Police Officer with a direction to get the services effected on the injured Satveer. Mr. Dhankar, further pointed-out that on 10th April, the matter was taken-up by the trial-court, perhaps in view of the order passed by this Court on March 28, 1995 and 12th April, 1995 was fixed and summons were issued to the concerned Police Officer with a direction to get the services effected on the injured Satveer. 12th April, 1995 was declared as Holiday and the matter was taken by the Court on 14th April, 1995. On this date injured Satveer, did not appear though the service was effected on him and an application was moved on his behalf that he was admitted in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. On behalf of the accused an affidavit was filed to the effect that injured Satveer was not admitted in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. Then, on 15th April an application was moved by Ghisaram, the father of the injured Satveer, that his son was admitted in 'Getwel Poly Clinic' Jawahar Lai Nehru Marg, Jaipur. This fact was also disputed by the accused and no medical certificate was produced before the trial-court showing that injured Satveer, was admitted in 'Getwel Poly Clinic' as indoor patient and the cause for his admission. In these circumstances, Mr. Dhankar, contended that the petitioner be given the benefit of bail under Section 439 Cr.PC specially when injured Satveer in his statement recorded under Sec. ,161 Cr.PC has attributed the grievous injury to the co-accused Rohitashva. 5. The learned P.P. has contended that injured Satveer might be admitted in 'Getwell Poly Clinic' Jaipur and looking to the nature of injuries sustained by i this bail-application should not be allowed. 6. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. At the out-set, I have no hesitation in expressing my distress to the manner in which the trial of this case has proceeded in a casual manner. This Court has been insisting time and again that on adjournment in case should not be granted where the accused are in jail and effective hearing should be made. As stated earlier, while rejecting the second application on 2.11.1994, it was made clear that statement of the injured Satveer should be recorded by the trial Court as early as possible, and after recording of his statement, the petitioner was given liberty to move fresh bail application. As stated earlier, while rejecting the second application on 2.11.1994, it was made clear that statement of the injured Satveer should be recorded by the trial Court as early as possible, and after recording of his statement, the petitioner was given liberty to move fresh bail application. The trial-Court had come to know about this order on 7.11.1994 itself, when a copy of the order was produced before it for releasing co-accused Rohitashva on bail as per the said order. Still a long adjournment of two months was given and 6th January, 1995 was fixed. On 6th January, 1995 the case was again adjourned on mere asking by the learned counsel for the petitioner on two occasions i.e. 8.2.1995 and 17.2.1995 the matter was adjourned without any progress on the ground that police guard did not produce the petitioner in Court. On 17.2.1995, arguments on framing charge were heard and again a long date of 15 days was given for pronouncement of order. The charges came to be , framed on 28.3.1995 and even there-after injured Satveer, has not been examined by the prosecution. All these proceedings are not in-consonance with the concept of speedy trial. The injured Satveer, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, had attributed the grievous injury of his scalp to the co-accused Rohitashva and this Court wanted his statement to be recorded to see if any plausible explanation comes from his side in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons given by this Court while granting bail to co-accused Rohitashva on 2.11.1994. In spite of the said order, neither the learned judge took the matter seriously, nor the learned P.P. was vigilant to see that injured Satveer is. examined without any delay. 7. In such state of affairs, this Court has been, left with no option but to release the accused petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.PC. 8. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner Rameshwar son of Nandlal Ahir, R/o Bichpuri, P.S. Shahjahapur, Distt. Alwar shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 8. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner Rameshwar son of Nandlal Ahir, R/o Bichpuri, P.S. Shahjahapur, Distt. Alwar shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial-Court for his appearance 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 trial in the cases subject to the following condition:- 9. 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. 10. If the aforesaid condition is violated, it shall be open to the trial-Court to cancel his bail Without making any reference to this Court. 11. The bail-application is disposed of as indicated above. *******