JUDGMENT:- (1). Liberty is granted to the learned Advocate of the petitioner to correct the P.S. case No. in the cause title of the petition. (2). The petitioner was arrested in the connection with this case on 12th February, 2000 and since then he is in custody. The case was committed to the Court of sessions and charge was framed on 20th March, 2002. Recording of evidence was started on 13th September, 2005. Last witness was examined on 17th March, 2006. Although some witnesses were examined in the present case, it appears from the order sheet that after 2006 there is absolutely no progress in the trial. The Court is also lying vacant since 1st October, 2006 as it was ascertained by this Court from the Registry. Admittedly the accused petitioner is languishing in jail for more than eight and half years as under trial prisoner. (3). From the order sheet it appears that on number of occasions dates were fixed for recording evidence but trial was adjourned time to time on such dates on different grounds such as, absence of presiding officer, observing cease work by the learned Advocates, non production of prosecution witnesses etc. It also appears from the order sheet that the accused is languishing in jail for no fault of his own (4). Mr. Asimes Goswami, learned Public Prosecutor in his usual fairness submits that although there are materials against the present petitioner in the Case Diary, continued detention of an under trial prisoner, who is in custody for more than eight and half years, is not at all desirable. (5). In our considered view, it will not be proper for this Court to refuse the prayer for bail in such circumstances as stated above. Accordingly, we allow the prayer for bail and direct that the accused petitioner namely, Arun Kumar Das shall be released on bail of Rs. 10,000/-, with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/-each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South). (6). It is further directed, that after being released on bail, the accused petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each and every date so fixed by such Court. In case the petitioner fails to appear on any occasion, the learned Trial Judge will be at liberty to cancel the bail without any further reference to this Court. (6). It is further directed, that after being released on bail, the accused petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each and every date so fixed by such Court. In case the petitioner fails to appear on any occasion, the learned Trial Judge will be at liberty to cancel the bail without any further reference to this Court. Prosecution will also be at liberty to file application for cancellation of such bail in violation of the condition as stated above. (7). From our earlier order dated 11th December, 2008 it appears that on the last date of hearing, it was submitted before us that an application for transfer of the case was filed before the learned Sessions Judge and such application was rejected by the Sessions Judge and it was also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge also gave a direction that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 16th Court will continue with the remaining portion of the trial of the above referred case. It is submitted by Mr. Goswasmi that the application filed by the petitioner praying for transfer was rejected by the trial Court, but there was no such direction that the trial would continue in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 16th Court. Such report was submitted by the Officer in charge due to mistake. The explanation given by the Investigating Officer is accepted by us. (8). The application for bail is thus, disposed of.