JUDGMENT 1. - This is the fourth bail application of the accused-applicant, and the charge against him, is for the offence under section 302/34, IPC. The trial is pending before the learned trial Court. Some of the prosecution witnesses have been examined. 2. The first bail application was dismissed as not pressed, on 26.2.97. The learned trial Court is, however, directed to record the statements of the prosecution witnesses Pyara Singh, Kashmer Singh and Baljinder Singh, on priority basis. The second bail application was moved after the statements of the said three witnesses were recorded by the learned trial Court. Witness Baljinder Singh has been stated to have turned hostile. On the perusal of the evidence of Pyara Singh and Kashmer Singh, the second bail application was dismissed on on 28.1.98, as it was found not to be a fit case, where the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-applicant. The third bail application was dismissed as not pressed, on 15.5.98, as the learned counsel for the accused-applicant did not press the same. The learned trial Court was, however, directed to expedite the trial and it was expected that the trial would be completed within a period of three months. 3. Now, the accused-applicant has moved this fourth bail application, on the ground that the trial has not yet been completed and the accused-applicant is languishing in jail, for a long period of about two years and he has contributed nothing in the delay of the trial. 4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 5. The following observations of Hon'ble The Supreme Court, made in the case of State Bank of Patiala & Ors. v. S.K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 , though, in a different context, cannot be lost sight of:- "Justice means justice between both the parties. The interests of the justice equally demand that the guilty should be punished and that technicalities and irregularities which do not occasion failure of justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. Principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the ends of justice. They cannot be perverted to achieve the very opposite end. That would be a counter-productive exercise." 6. When long detention on account of delay in trial would entitle an accused to be released on bail? Principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the ends of justice. They cannot be perverted to achieve the very opposite end. That would be a counter-productive exercise." 6. When long detention on account of delay in trial would entitle an accused to be released on bail? This question came up for consideration, before Hon'ble The Supreme Court, in the case of Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India & Ors., JT 1994 (6) SC 544 . Hon'ble the Supreme Court held as under : "Of course, some amount of deprivation of personal liberty cannot be avoided in such cases; but if the period of deprivation pending trial becomes unduly long, the fairness assured by Article 21 would receive a jolt. It is because of this that we have felt that after the accused persons have suffered imprisonment which is half of the maximum punishment provided for the offence, any further deprivation of personal liberty would be violative of the fundamental right visualised by Art. 21 What is then is the remedy? The offences under the Act are grave and, therefore, we are not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that we should quash the prosecutions and set free the accused persons whose trials are delayed beyond reasonable time. Alternatively he contended that such accused persons whose trial is have been delayed beyond reasonable time and are likely to be further delayed should be released on bail on such terms as this Court considers appropriate to impose. This suggestion commends to us." 7. Obviously, when the accused has suffered detention/custody for a period, which is half of the maximum punishment provided for the offence, he becomes entitled to be released on bail on the ground of delay in the trial. In the instant case, the accused-applicant has not suffered detention for a period which is half of the maximum punishment provided for the offence, with which he has been charged. Obviously, according to, the above principle laid down by Hon'ble The Supreme Court, the accused-applicant is not entitled to be released on bail, merely on account of alleged long detention and delay in the trial.Therefore, this fourth bail application is dismissed.Bail Application dismissed. *******