Judgment : AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. ( 1 ) BY filing this interlocutory application prayer has been made by the petitioner to cancel/ recall/annul the order dated 10. 1. 2006 passed in the Bail Application No. 3920 of2004. ( 2 ) THE background of the facts is that the petitioner herein was in custody in connection with the Sessions Trial No. 255/2002 for the offence under section 302, 1. P. C. His prayer for bail was rejected thrice by this Court in B. A. No. 6189/ 2001, B. A. No. 1526/2001 and in B. A. No. 2042/2003 and also by the Supreme court in S. L. P. (Crl.) No. 6677 of 2001. He thereafter, made fourth attempt before this Court for bail by filing B. A. No. 3920/ 2004. As it appears from the order dated 30. 7. 2004 passed by a Bench of this Court that when the Court was not inclined to grant bail, the petitioners Counsel submitted that he intends to withdraw the bail application, if direction is made to the Trial Court for expeditious disposal of the trial within a fixed time frame and as it appears that on the said request of the petitioner, his application for bail was dismissed as withdrawn by giving a specific direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the trial definitely by December, 2004. For ready reference the aforesaid order dated 30. 7. 2004 is quoted herein below : "heard the learned Counsel for the parties. After some arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits to withdraw this bail application, if this Court directs the learned Trial Court for expeditious disposal of this case within a fixed time frame. The learned Additional Public prosecutor has no objection in respect thereof. In view of the submissions aforesaid, this bail application is dismissed as withdrawn. The learned Trial Court (1st additional Sessions Judge, bokaro at Chas) is directed to dispose of Sessions Trial No. 255 of 2002 as expeditiously as possible but definitely by december, 2004. " ( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the learned Trial court sent a letter to this Court contained in letter No. 369 dated 24. 12. 2004 stating therein that altogether 17 witnesses of prosecution have been examined and the case of the prosecution has been closed on 18. 12. 2004 and thereafter, statement of the accused-persons have been recorded on 24. 12. " ( 3 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the learned Trial court sent a letter to this Court contained in letter No. 369 dated 24. 12. 2004 stating therein that altogether 17 witnesses of prosecution have been examined and the case of the prosecution has been closed on 18. 12. 2004 and thereafter, statement of the accused-persons have been recorded on 24. 12. 2004 and since the Court was going to be closed for X-mas Holidays and also that the accused-persons wanted to adduce their defence witnesses, therefore, some more time was required for disposal of the trial and, therefore, made a request to this court to extend the time frame by a further period of three months for disposal of the trial. ( 4 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid request of the Trial Court, the matter was placed on 12. 1. 2005 and this Court extended the time to conclude the trial by a further period of three months. ( 5 ) IT appears that subsequently, this Court at the request of the Trial court extended the time to conclude the trial by two months vide order dated 22. 6. 2005 and then by three months vide order dated 16. 9. 2005 and. thereafter, by six weeks vide order dated 10. 1. 2006. Now, by filing this interlocutory application it is stated by the petitioner particularly in paragraphs 5 and 6 that since subsequently by order dated 25. 7. 2005 Honble Mr. Justice N. N. Tiwari was pleased to grant bail to the petitioner and, therefore, no sooner the petitioner was granted bail, the very genesis of the time frame for disposal of the Sessions trial disappeared. ( 6 ) IT is submitted that the Trial court is not allowing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to adduce defence witnesses only because this Court had given time frame to the Trial Court for conclusion of the trial and, therefore, the directions issued by this Court from time to time, i. e. on 30. 7. 2004. 12. 1. 2005, 22. 6. 2005, 16. 9. 2005 and lastly on 10. 1. 2006 be recalled/cancelled. ( 7 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly is misconceived. Only because at a subsequent stage, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, it cannot be said that all the orders dated 30. 7. 2004. 12. 1. 2005, 22. 6. 2005, 16. 9. 2005 and lastly on 10. 1. 2006 be recalled/cancelled. ( 7 ) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly is misconceived. Only because at a subsequent stage, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, it cannot be said that all the orders dated 30. 7. 2004 and subsequent thereto, directing the Trial court for conclusion of the trial within a time frame became redundant or that the same disappeared. ( 8 ) IT is noteworthy that when the petitioner was in custody and his prayer for bail was rejected several times by this court and once by the Supreme Court also, at that stage he himself was very anxious for disposal and conclusion of the trial and, therefore, made a request to this Court to direct the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a time frame but now when he is on bail his anxiety appears to be otherwise. The grievance of the petitioner that the Trial Court was not giving sufficient opportunity for adducing defence witnesses does not appear to be correct. Different letters of the Trial court, sent to this Court, speak otherwise. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, having found no merit, this interlocutory application being LA. No. 311 of 2006 is rejected. Application dismissed. --- *** --- .