Honble TIBREWAL, J. – All these accused petitioners are facing trial in Sessions Case No. 118/94, State vs. Rikhab Chand & Ors. in the Court of Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Kota. (2). The accused-petitioners have filed bail applications mainly on the ground of delay in trial. The bail applications of all the accused-petitioners have been rejected on merits earlier. As such, the matter need not be examined on merits. (3). The occurrence had taken place in the month of June 1993 and the Police succeeded in arresting some of the accused persons. Co-accused Gayatri alias Mahendra Kumar and Dhanna Lal were left out by the Police during investigation and charge-sheet was filed against 8 persons leaving the aforesaid two accused. However, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against accused Dhanna Lal and Gayatri alias Mahendra Kumar and issued non-bailable warrants to secure their attendance. As these two persons could not be arrested, the learned concerned Magistrate did not commit the case as he was awaiting for their arrest. While deciding third bail application of petitioner Gopal on 27.7.94, this Court directed the committing Court to conclude committal proceedings against those accused who were arrested and it was made clear that observations made by this Court in the order dated, 27.5.94 while deciding the bail application of Naresh Talaiya, will not come in way of committing other accused persons who have been arrested. Thereafter, the case was for trial and the trial Court framed charges on October 22, 1994 without delay. Thereafter, upto 17.12.94 nine prosecution witnesses have been examined by the trial Court. On 9.12.94 third bail application of Naresh Talaiya was disposed of as under: ``The only ground on which this bail application has been moved is the delay in trial. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused petitioner is in custody of the last 16 months and he is a young boy. Mr. Tyagi appearing for the complainant, has brought to the notice of this court that the charge itself was framed on October 22, 1994 or so and six witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in a short period. Mr. Tyagi further gives out that all the prosecution witnesses shall be examined within three months. Mr. Tyagi appearing for the complainant, has brought to the notice of this court that the charge itself was framed on October 22, 1994 or so and six witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in a short period. Mr. Tyagi further gives out that all the prosecution witnesses shall be examined within three months. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I grant four months time to the prosecution from today to examine all the prosecution witnesses. In case, the prosecution witnesses, are not examined within specified period without reasonable cause, the petitioner shall be free to move fresh bail application. The bail application is disposed of accordingly." (4). The IVth bail application of Gopal Soni and IIIrd bail application of Rikhab Chand were also dismissed by this court on 2.2.94 in the light of the aforesaid order dated 9.12.94. After 9.12.94, statements of P.W. 7. Ajit Rawat, P.W. 8 Chiranji Lal and P.W. 9 Dhanna Lal were recorded on 16.12.94 and 17.12.94. The witness Bal Krishna Pandey who is one of the eye-witnesses and the informant, could not appear in Court as he was not provided protection by the police and a direction was given by the trial Court in com- pliance to earlier order dated, 19.11.94. Hence, next dates were fixed as 11.1.95, 12.1.95 and 13.1.95 for recording remaining prosecution evidence. On 12.1.95 the statement of Bal Krishna Pandey was completed. On 13.1.95 the witnesses Prabhu Dayal Meena and Durga Lal were present but their statements could not be recorded as no posting of a Special Prosecutor in the Court was made and Shri Roop Narain Pareek who was doing additional work of Special Prosecutor of that Court could not appear for his being busy in other Court. In this situation the trial Count had no option but to adjourn the case for the next date and the witnesses were bound down. On the next date of hearing i.e. 10.2.95, the counsel for the complainant stated before the Court that he had obtained permission of the P.P. to examine prosecution witnesses and next date was fixed as 6.3.95. On 6.3.95 statements of P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 were recorded and 6.4.95 was fixed for recording statements of the remaining prosecution witnesses. On 6.4.95 and 14.4.95 the Judge was on leave and taking into consideration his further leave 10.5.95 was fixed with consent of all the parties. On 6.3.95 statements of P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 were recorded and 6.4.95 was fixed for recording statements of the remaining prosecution witnesses. On 6.4.95 and 14.4.95 the Judge was on leave and taking into consideration his further leave 10.5.95 was fixed with consent of all the parties. On 10.5.95 the remaining witnesses do not appear as they were not served upon, hence the learned trial Court issued bailable warrants to secure their attendance and a direction was given to write a D.O. to S.P. Kota to get service effected on the witnesses after taking interest in view of the directions given by the High Court and next date was fixed as 22.5.95. (5). Thus, the delay in trial after order dated 9.12.94 passed in the bail application of Naresh Talaiya, was not a deliberate one. Consequently, I am not inclined to release the petitioners on bail on the ground of delay. (6). The argument of the learned counsel that except Bal Krishna Pandey all other eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and that the evidence of Bal Krishna Pandey is not firm and reliable and as such, the petitioners be released on bail, cannot be appreciated at this stage. Any expression of opinion on his evidence may prejudice the case of either party. Further, conviction of the accused can be recorded on the sole testimony of Shri Bal Krishna Pandey if the same is relied upon. The law is well settled on this point. Be that as it may, I am not inclined to release the petitioners on bail on this ground. However, in the back ground of the facts narrated above, I direct the trial Court to take firm and positive steps to procure attendance of the remaining prosecution witnesses and if any police officer is found lacking in discharge of his duty in carrying out orders of the Court, action be taken against him in accordance with law. Adjournments be not granted in the case on mere asking either by the Public Prosecutor or the counsel for the accused. Efforts should be made to conclude the trial as early as possible and if necessary, the case may be taken day today if witnesses appear in Court. The trial Court shall send its report after two months from today about the progress and efforts made by it in concluding the trial. Efforts should be made to conclude the trial as early as possible and if necessary, the case may be taken day today if witnesses appear in Court. The trial Court shall send its report after two months from today about the progress and efforts made by it in concluding the trial. The said report be placed before me as and when received by the Registry. (7). Before parting with I would like to deal with the complaint made by learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel had contended that the police personnel were siding the accused, from the very beginning and the concerned I.O. was also not taking interest to get service effected on the witnesses. It was contended that the order dated, 23.5.94 passed by this Court in bail applications No. 990/94 and 1322/94 while deciding bail applications of co-accused Gayatri alias Mahendra Kumar is clear in this regard and no action has been taken against the concerned I.O. in complia- nce to the above order. Learned counsel has also filed an affidavit of the complainant Bal Krishna Pandey which is dated, 10.5.95. In the said affidavit it has been stated by the deponent that he personally moved an application before the trial Court on 8.5.95 to issue process to the witnesses and bailable warrants were issued on the same day to be sent to the S.H.O. to get service effected. He further stated in the affidavit that Medical Jurist, Dr. Kaushik was present in Court on 9.5.95 and he personally made a request to the I.O. to get service effected on him, but he replied that he himself would get the service effected on him, but no step was taken by him. Other warrants also returned unserved. If the above grievance is correct, then it is really serious and disturbing. The Police Officers are duty bound to assist the Court in procuring attendance of the witnesses to avoid delay in trials. I trust and believe that in future the concerned Police Officers will be vigilant to see that delay in the trial is not caused on account of lapses on their part. (8). I, therefore, direct the Registrry that a copy of this order be sent to the concerned S.H.O. and the S.P. for compliance of the order. I trust and believe that in future the concerned Police Officers will be vigilant to see that delay in the trial is not caused on account of lapses on their part. (8). I, therefore, direct the Registrry that a copy of this order be sent to the concerned S.H.O. and the S.P. for compliance of the order. Notice be also issued to Director General of Police to inform this Court through a pleader or otherwise the action taken by him till now in pursuance of the direction given by me on 23.5.94 while deciding bail applications No. 990/94, Gayatri alias Mahendra Kumar and No. 1372/94, Dhanna Lal vs State of Rajasthan. The explanation be sent within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Here I would like to state that the learned P.P. was directed by the Court to inform the Court about follow up action on the above order dated, 23.5.94 The learned P.P. has moved in writing that he had informed the P.S. to D.G.P. to send the information but no-body cared to turn up and supply the required information. This is really shocking if the request of P.P. was taken casually. (9). The bail applications are disposed of as indicated above. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court by Registered Post.