ORDER Heard Mr. Aminuddin Ahmad Khan, counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Bharat Lal A.P.P. representing the State and Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra appearing for the informant. 2. The petitioner is one of the accused in a case u/s 302 of the Penal Code. His prayer for bail was earlier rejected by this Court a number of times. The prayer is renewed on the ground that he is in jail for over three and half years and there are no signs of the trial proceedings coming to an end. The second part of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner appears to be slightly misleading. On behalf of the informant, an affidavit is filed from which it appears that though in the charge sheet, nine witnesses were named four out of them were given up by the prosecution. The remaining four witnesses including the I.O. have been examined. What now remains is the cross-examination of the I.O. by the defence and examination/cross-examination of the deoctor. From the informant's affidavit, it further appears that the trial proceedings were currently stalled because the Court of A.D.J.II where the trial is going on was being boycotted by the members of the Ara Bar from the past three months. 3. This appears to the Court to be a highly anamolous position. On the one hand, the counsel for the petitioner refuses to attend the Court concerned and on the other hand, the petitioner tries to take the plea of delay in his trial. 4. Had the trial been allowed to proceed normally, it must have come to an end by now and if it has not been concluded till date, the petitioner has only to thank his own lawyer for his conduct. 5. In the circumstances as noted above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 6. Further on hearing counsel for the parties, the trial court is directed to take all steps, if need be coercive ones, to secure the attendance of the I.O. and the doctor. 5. In the circumstances as noted above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 6. Further on hearing counsel for the parties, the trial court is directed to take all steps, if need be coercive ones, to secure the attendance of the I.O. and the doctor. On the date on which the I.O. appears , he will be allowed to be cross-examine j by the defence counsel but in case the defence counsel for anyone else on behalf of the petitioner fails to come forward to cross-examine him on that date, the evidence of the I.O. will be closed and the defence shall get no more opportunity for his cross-examination. Similarly, on the date on which the doctor appears, regardless of the presence of the A.P.P. or the defence counsel, the Court shall himself examine him as a prosecution witness and shall get from hiJ1l the postmortem and or any other document on the record of the case duly identified and marked as exhibits. If the defence so desire, it will be open to them to cross-examine the doctor otherwise his evidence too shall be closed and the defence shall have no opportunity to cross-examine him in future. The Court shall then proceed to examine the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and to pronounce final judgment in the trial.