JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This is an application u/s 439, Code of Criminal Procedure. It is alleged that petitioner and several others have committed offences, inter alia, u/s 302/149, Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The earlier applications for bail on behalf of the present petitioner had been rejected at least on two occasions, as per the certificate furnished in the bail application itself. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry at the instance of one Chitta Mishra. It is further contended that petitioner is suffering from various ailments inside jail and is not getting proper treatment. The counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that petitioner has remained in custody for more than two and half years and there is no possibility of the criminal trial being disposed of at an early date and as such, the petitioner should be directed to be released on bail keeping in view the right of a person to get speedy trial as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. So far as the first submission is concerned, though it appears that there is rivalry between the prosecution party and the accused persons and cases and counter cases are apparently pending, as evident from records in Criminal Misc. Case No. 178 of 1997 (Narayan Sahoo v. Jabdu Nanda and Ors.) and Criminal Misc. Case No. 491 of 1996 (Jadbu Nanda v. Ramesh Kumar Satpathy and Ors.) which were being listed and taken up along with the present case, it cannot be concluded for the purpose of considering this bail application that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. A perusal of the connected disposed of cases relating to the petitioner as well as several co-accused persons and the case diary indicates that the petitioner is alleged to have given the fatal blow to the deceased. At the time of considering the bail application it would not be proper to discuss in detail the statements of various persons against the petitioner, nor would it be proper to opine as to. whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to rivalry. As such, it cannot be said that no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner. 3. whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to rivalry. As such, it cannot be said that no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner. 3. Even though prima facie case is made out, an accused person suffering from serious illness can be released on bail. This is evident from the provisions contained in Section 437(1), proviso, Code of Criminal Procedure. Though it would not be desirable to lay down the details of circumstances under which an accused person can be released on bail on the ground of illness, there cannot be any dispute that the illness should be serious in nature and there should not be adequate facility in the jail or any nearby referral hospitals to treat a particular accused person. In the present case, pursuant to the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner regarding the illness of the petitioner, report has been called for from the Superintendent, District Jail, which has been produced. From the said report, it appears that the petitioner had been undergoing treatment in District Headquarters Hospital, Bolangir, as well as V.S.S. Medical College Hospital, at Burla from time to time. The report of the Jail Medical Officer, Bolangir, indicates that at the time of filing the report, the petitioner was suffering from, irregular attacks of bronchial asthma with fissure in ano. The said report also indicates that the petitioner was earlier treated at V.S.S. Medical, College and had been discharged. From the report submitted, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that the condition of the petitioner is such so as to direct his release on bail. While discarding the aforesaid submission, it is made clear that the jail authority should take adequate steps to treat the petitioner in the Jail Hospital or in the District Headquarters Hospital or any other referral hospital, such as V.S.S. Medical College Hospital, Burla, depending upon the exigencies of circumstances. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly contended that since the petitioner is incarcerated in jail for more than two and half years, and there is no possibility of the conclusion of the trial in near future due to pendency of criminal case in the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the trial Court, the petitioner should be released on bail. In this connection, it has been contended that right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused person and comes within the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is no longer in dispute that right to speedy trial is apart of fundamental right of a person as envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such a position is well-recognised at least in several decisions of the Supreme Court since about two decades. In the decision reported in Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 939 , it had been observed : ".......We fail to understand why our justice system has become so dehumanised that lawyers and Judges do not feel a sense of revolt at caging people in jail for years without a trial......." Even prior to the aforesaid decisions, it had been observed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Hussainara Khatoon and Others Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, : "We think that even under our Constitution, though speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21......Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be 'reasonable', fair or just' unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person........" Though it was observed in the decisions reported in Shyam Sahu and Others Vs. State of Orissa, and Kumud Mahapatra and Another Vs. Abhina Mallick and Others, that delay in trial may not be a good ground for releasing on bail, in view of the subsequent Division Bench decision of this Court reported in (1990) 3 OCR 427 (Leti alias Jayadeb Roy and Anr., etc. v. The State), there cannot be any doubt that delay in disposal in a Criminal trial or criminal appeal may be a valid ground for releasing an accused/convict on bail. However, as observed in the said Division Bench decision, whether there has been undue delay justifying release of an accused/convict on bail would depend upon various facts and circumstances of the case including the reason for the delay, the nature of the offence alleged and other relevant circumstances. In the present case, there is no doubt that there has been some amount of delay in disposal of the criminal case. In the present case, there is no doubt that there has been some amount of delay in disposal of the criminal case. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to hold that the delay in disposal of the case would justify the release of the petitioner on bail particularly keeping in view the background of the case, the nature of allegations and the strong apprehension of retaliation or clash between the rival groups. For the aforesaid reasons. I do not consider it a fit case where the petitioner should be released on bail at this stage. It is, however, directed that if there is no impediment, the trial of the case should be expedited and if any other matter is pending in the High Court appropriate steps may be taken by the counsel for the petitioner or the State for expeditious disposal of such case in the High Court to pave the way for early disposal of the trial itself. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of.