JUDGMENT 1. - This is third bail application on behalf of the petitioners and has been filed only on the ground of delay which is being caused by the prosecution by not producing the witnesses. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in custody since April 1996 and the prosecution is deliberately not producing the witnesses before the trial Court. He has drawn my attention to the different order sheets drawn by the learned trial court which show that in spite of best efforts of the court the prosecution has not produced its witnesses nor summons/warrant are being executed. Learned trial court issued even non bailable warrant of arrest of some witnesses even they have not been executed. A chart has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners for not producing the witnesses though the learned trial judge was quite strict in passing the order to secure the attendance of the witnesses. When the last application was rejected it was assured by the Prosecutor that witnesses will be produced. But the prosecution was unable to produce the witnesses as is apparent from the ordersheet of 12th and 13th May 1997. 3. Speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited Rildusingh v. State of Rajasthan, (Supplementary) 1996 RCC page 43 wherein it has been observed that when there is unreasonable delay in disposal of sessions trial, it is proper to release the accused on bail. He also cited Baghsingh and others v. State of Rajasthan, RLW 1968 page 400 wherein it was observed that when prosecution failed to produce witnesses in spite of undertaking, accused should be granted bail if the prosecution further fails to produce prosecution witnesses on next date of hearing. In the present case, I am of the view that the prosecution is not producing the witnesses deliberately though a lawyer was engaged on behalf of prosecution to assist. 4. It is a fit case in which the petitioners should be enlarged on bail Petition is allowed and it is ordered that if each of the petitioners (Poosaram and Surendra Kumar) executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 4. It is a fit case in which the petitioners should be enlarged on bail Petition is allowed and it is ordered that if each of the petitioners (Poosaram and Surendra Kumar) executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- together with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance on each and every date of hearing or as and when called upon to do so, they shall be released on bail.> Petition allowed. *******