JUDGMENT 1. -I have heard Mr. D.C. Chaturvedi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Rathore learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully perused the material on record. 2. It appears that on 22.12.1998 when witness Shyosingh was present, an application was moved on behalf of the learned Advocate Mr. D.C. Chaturvedi seeking adjournment on the ground that he was not well. Similarly on 13.1.1999 witness Shameena was not cross-examined but counsel Shri Goparam Nagayach moved an application seeking withdrawal of his Vakalatnama. 3. In my considered opinion, the right of speedy trial enshrined u/Art. 21 of Constitution of India is only available to accused when he is in custody for no fault on his own for not concluding the trial early. 4. The Division Bench of this Court in Angrej Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 748 propounded that it will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case as to what is the delay and whether on the ground of that delay the accused should or should not be released on bail, the matter of bail is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously. 5. In view of the fact that the accused-petitioner did not assist the trial Court in recording the statements of witnesses present in Court, I am not inclined to release him on bail. The ratio of Munna @ Mahendra v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 RCC 323 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. I do not want' to appreciate the statement of witnesses recorded by the learned trial Court as it may adversely affect the trial. 6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I find no ground to release the petitioner on bail. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.Bail rejected. *******