VINOD PRASAD, J. This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10628 of 2005 was rejected by Honble M. K. Mittal, J. on 23-8-2005. This second Bail Application was placed before his Lordship but vide order dated 17-8-2006 his Lordship has been pleased to release this second bail application and had directed that this bail application to be listed before the appropriate Bench in the next cause list, hence it has come up before me. 2. The applicant seeks bail in crime No. 348 of 2004, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 504, 307/34 I. P. C. , police station Khair, District Aligarh. 3. The allegations against the applicant are that on 5-11-2004 at 6. 30 a. m. the applicant alongwith co- accused Ravindra @ Rafta shot at Prem Pal Singh brother of the informant Man Singh after entering into the house of the informant. Prem Pal Singh had died subsequently because of inflicted injuries by the accused. The motive for the crime was a decade old enmity regarding a wall. The informant Man Singh covering a distance of twelve kilometers lodged a F. I. R. in respect this murder of Prem Pal Singh at the police station Khair, District Aligarh same day at 7. 25 a. m. The post-mortem report of the deceased Prem Pal Singh dated 5-11-2004 indicates that he had sustained fire-arm injuries and one abrasion. On the said fact the applicant applied for his bail before the Sessions Judge, which was rejected by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Aligarh on 29-1-2005. Consequently, the applicant filed his bail application in this Court being Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10628 of 2005, Devendra Singh v. State of U. P. , which too was rejected by Honble M. K. Mittal, J. on 23-8-2005 as has been stated above. Hence, this second bail application by the applicant. 4. I have heard Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant in support of this second bail application and the learned A. G. A. in opposition. 5. Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant contended that in this case the applicant is languishing in jail since 2004 more than one year and ten months and the trial is not proceedings at all. 5. Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant contended that in this case the applicant is languishing in jail since 2004 more than one year and ten months and the trial is not proceedings at all. He alongwith this second bail application had filed the certified copy of the order sheet of the concerned Sessions Trial No. 302 of 2005, State v. Devendra Singh & Ors. , pending before Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Aligarh. A perusal of the order sheet filed by the applicant indicates that the Sessions Trial is being conducted against the provision of Section 309 Cr. P. C. and the police is not executing the subpoena issued by the trial Judge. A perusal of the order sheet dated 24-6-2006 indicates that the Presiding Officer was on leave and hence 7-7-2006 was the next date fixed in the case. On 7-7- 2006, no prosecution witness was present nor the report of service of subpoena issued by the trial Court was filed by the prosecution. The said order sheet further indicates that S. S. P. Aligarh was also given a Fax message to intimate S. S. P. Pilibhit that witness S. I. C. B. Shukla be asked to be present in Court on 7- 7-2006. S. I. C. B. Shukla was not present on that day in the Court. Consequently, the trial Court was constraint to fix 11-7-2006 for appearance of the aforesaid witness who was the Investigation Officer of the crime. On the next date that is 11-7-2006, the Presiding Officer was on leave and hence 24-7-2006 was fixed in the case. On the said date 24-7- 2006 a report was submitted by A. D. G. C. that the aforesaid Investigating Officer C. B. Shukla had not join the co-operative cell and is on medical leave consequently, non-bailable warrant and notice under Section 350 I. P. C. be issued. On the said request it was observed by the trial Court that the applicant is in jail and in the absence of the aforesaid witness the trial could not be decided. D. G. P. Police U. P. Government was directed by the trial Court to get the presence of the aforesaid witness C. B. Shukla ensured before the trial Court on 5-8-2006. The Additional Sessions Judge also issued non-bailable warrant and notice under Section 350 Cr. D. G. P. Police U. P. Government was directed by the trial Court to get the presence of the aforesaid witness C. B. Shukla ensured before the trial Court on 5-8-2006. The Additional Sessions Judge also issued non-bailable warrant and notice under Section 350 Cr. P. C. to the aforesaid witness through S. H. O. (Station House Officer) P. S. Khair, District Aligarh. The next date fixed in the case was 5-8-2006. On the said date also the Investigating Officer C. B. Shukla was not present and the D. G. P. U. P. Police has also not been effective enforcing the presence of witness. The Court is left with no option but to order the suspension of the payment of salary by the police department to Sri C. B. Shukla till he appears and get his evidence recorded in this trial. Inform the D. G. P. Police for compliance. 6. Issue fresh non-bailable-warrant of Inspector C. B. Shukla fixing 19-8-2006. He shall be relieved of the charge before the execution of non-bailable-warrant and notice under Section 350 Cr. P. C. 7. S. H. O. police station Khair shall depute special messenger to get this order served on D. G. P. Police, Lucknow. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid facts learned Counsel for the applicant contended that since the prosecution is not being able to examine his witness in the case, therefore, the applicant cannot be detained in jail any further. He contended that the right of release of the applicant on bail, in the event the trial being not proceeded with, not because of the fault of the accused has been held violative of Article 14 of The Constitution of India as has been held by the Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoons case, 1979 SC 1360. He contended that the applicant cannot be detained indefinitely into jail and once the prosecution is not examining the witnesses the right of the applicant to be released on bail cannot be jeopardized. He, therefore, contended that the applicant be directed to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial. He submitted that the applicant undertakes not to temper with prosecution witnesses and not to abscond. 9. He, therefore, contended that the applicant be directed to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial. He submitted that the applicant undertakes not to temper with prosecution witnesses and not to abscond. 9. Learned A. G. A. on the other hand contended that in this case the Court is making all endeavours to secure the presence of the witness and for that reason it has even issued D. O. and Fax message. He submitted that the order sheet clearly shows that it is on the latches of the police that the witness is not appearing in the Court. Learned A. G. A. also expressed his anguish on the conduct of the police in not getting the aforesaid witness who is a police personnel to abide by the subpoenas issued by the trial Judge. 10. I have considered the contentions raised by both the sides. It is a case, which is a glaring example of the working of the police department in respect of production of witnesses and subpoenas issued by the trial Court. Hundreds of trials are pending in the trial Courts because of the laxity on the part of the police to produce the witnesses in the Court on the dates fixed in cases and to abide by various directions issued by the Court. It is a matter of grave concern that in spite of fact that the Supreme Court repeatedly has said that expeditious disposal of trial is the fundamental right of an accused yet the police department of this State is sleeping over the said judgment and is an impediment in getting it implemented both in letter and spirit. As it seems that the police department has scanty respect for the various orders, which are being passed by the trial Court and even some times by this Court as well. This situation should not be allowed to go on unchecked and unfettered. Consequently, by this order I direct the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradash to take immediate remedial measures to produce the witnesses and abide by various orders passed by the Courts in respect of his department without fail. It is not the duty of the police to concentrate only on those issues, which now a days are relevant and germane for their promotion and better posting. It is not the duty of the police to concentrate only on those issues, which now a days are relevant and germane for their promotion and better posting. D. G. P. , U. P. is directed to get the aforesaid witness produced in the Court on the next date fixed in the Sessions Trial without fail. 11. So far as the prayer for bail is concerned at the moment, since, the applicant is the main shooter, is stands rejected, with the direction that if on the next occasion the prosecution fail to produce the aforesaid witness the applicant can again approach the trial Court for being released on bail. In the event the prosecution seeks further time the trial Court is directed to release the applicant on parole till the conclusion of trial after taking adequate security and an undertaking from the applicant that he will not abscond and will not temper with the prosecution witnesses, will not leave the district without its permission and intimation to the concerned police station. 12. With the aforesaid direction, the bail application of the applicant stands rejected. Let the copy of the order be sent to D. G. P. Police, U. P. to take immediate remedial action and intimate the same to this Court within a period of a week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order by him. 13. Office of this Court is directed to send the copy of this Order to D. G. P. Lucknow forthwith. 14. Put up this case on 21st September, 2006 for orders on the direction issued by this order. Bail rejected. .