JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners were facing trial in Sessions Case No. 65/95 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg for th6 various offences including Section 302/149 IPC. The trial has already made sufficient progress and as pointed out by Mr. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, that 15 prosecution witnesses have been examined, so far and one witness has remained to be examined. 2. It appears that during pendency of the trial of the petitioners the remaining co-accused persons have been charge-sheeted'and the case has been committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Deeg. In this case, the trial has to commence. 3. The primary contention of Mr Chaturvedi was that the trial of the accused should be joint with the petitioners, but in the facts and circumstances, Mr. Chaturvedi does not press this request and in my view rightly so. The reason is obvious that the trial against the petitioners has already made sufficient progress and barring one, all prosecution witnesses have been examined, while the trial against the remaining co-accused yet to commence. 4. Consequently, so far this prayer is concerned, it is hereby rejected Faced with this situation. Mr. Chaturvedi, contended that both the petitioners are on bail and final arguments should be heard simultaneously alongwith the co-accused persons and it it is done so, it would not cause any prejudice to any of the parties. According to Mr. Chaturvedi, if it is done, them simultaneously the cases of all the accused-persons are decided, though, on the evidence recorded on their respective trial, the possibility of contradictory judgments may be avoided. This submission of Mr. Chaturvedi appears to be just and reasonable. It is no doubt true that the case against the petitioners has to be decided on the basis of evidence recorded in trial against them and the case of the co-accused shall be decided on the basis of evidence recorded in their trial, but it would not cause any prejudice, if finally both the cases are decided simultaneously. It would also not cause prejudice to any of the parties, as the petitioners shall also, remain on bail. Mr Chaturvedi, who is counsel for the co- accused also, undertakes that no delay shall be caused to the progress of the trial of the co-accused. 5. It would also not cause prejudice to any of the parties, as the petitioners shall also, remain on bail. Mr Chaturvedi, who is counsel for the co- accused also, undertakes that no delay shall be caused to the progress of the trial of the co-accused. 5. For the reasons stated above, it is hereby directed that evidence of both i.e. petitioner and co-accused including defence evidence in trial shall be recorded, but final arguments shall be deferred and the same be heard alongwith the case of co-accused who has not been committed to the said Court for trial. The learned trial court shall take effective and firm steps to conclude the evidence in the trial of the co-accused to avoid further delay. However, it is made clear that in case, it is bound that the delay is caused on behalf of the petitioner or co-accused, the trial Court shall be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence recorded against them.The petition stands disposed of as indicated above.Petition disposed of accordingly. *******