( 1 ) HEARD Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri C. Nageswara Rao, learned Public prosecutor. ( 2 ) THE petitioners herein are A-5 to A-16. They are seeking regular bail. All the petitioners except A-16 are injudicial custody since last week of May 2008 and A-16 is in judicial custody since first week of June 2008 i. e. , nearly for about 1 years. It is also not in dispute that the charge sheet has been filed in this case on 19-8-2008. The petitioners herein and others earlier approached this court and filed a bail petition in Criminal petition No. 2948 of 2009, and this Court, by order dated 6-5-2009, dismissed the said petition. However, the petitioners in that petition i. e. , A-1 and A-4 are not the petitioners herein. Subsequently, they have filed another bail petition in Criminal Petition No. 3913 of 2009, and this Court, by order dated 6-5-2009, dismissed the said petition. However, the petitioners in that petition i. e. , a-1 and A-4 are not the petitioners herein. Subsequently, they have filed another bail petition in Criminal Petition No. 3913 of 2009 and the said petition was also dismissed on 10-12-2009. This Court, while dismissing the petition in Crl. P. No. 2948 of 2009 on 6-5-2009 directed the learned Sessions Judge to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of said order and if necessary by giving day to day postings. It was also observed that if any accused are absconding the case against such persons should be separated and trial against the accused who are available should be completed as early as possible. In spite of giving specific direction by this Court as long as on 6-5-2009, it is most unfortunate that till today the trial is not yet commenced. It appears from the arguments of sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel for the petitioners and sri C. Nageswara Rao, learned Public prosecutor, that even charges have not been framed against the accused on the ground of absence of one or two accused on each date of their appearance before the learned Sessions judge. ( 3 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that as far as the present petitioners are concerned, the allegation against them is that they hurled bombs. ( 3 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that as far as the present petitioners are concerned, the allegation against them is that they hurled bombs. His submission is that omnibus allegations have been made against all the accused as if they hurled country made bombs and caused injuries to the deceased. It is also his submission that though the other accused persons have been enlarged on bail no untoward incident has been reported. It is also his submission that most of the petitioners are agricultural labourers and they are the earning members of their family and since they have been in judicial custody since more than 1 years their families are put to trouble. It is also his submission that the petitioners will abide by any of the conditions to be imposed by this Court. ( 4 ) SRI C. Nageswara Rao, learned Public prosecutor, submits that it is a case of gruesome murder in which 11 persons were done to death and that all the petitioners participated in the commission of offence and therefore they are not entitled to bail. It is also his submission that if this Court comes to a conclusion to enlarge the petitioners on bail, they shall not be allowed to enter into the village and strict conditions may be imposed. ( 5 ) THE only point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners can be enlarged on bail. ( 6 ) AS discussed above, this Court, while dismissing Crl. P. No. 2948 of 2009 on 6-5-2009, directed the learned Sessions Judge to complete the trial within three months from the date of that order. Further, this court, while dismissing another bail petition in Crl. P. No. 3913 of 2009 on 10-8-2009, on the report of the Additional Sessions Judge, kurnool at Adoni, extended the time for conclusion of trial by three more months. Thus, it is clear that in spite of giving specific directions by this Court on 6-5-2009 and subsequently on 10-8-2009 the trial could not be commenced. The only reason appears to be absence of some of the accused before the Sessions Court. ( 7 ) IN Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, state of Bihar (1) AIR 1979 SC 1360 it was held as follows: "speedy trial means reasonably expeditious trial. The only reason appears to be absence of some of the accused before the Sessions Court. ( 7 ) IN Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, state of Bihar (1) AIR 1979 SC 1360 it was held as follows: "speedy trial means reasonably expeditious trial. Speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the constitution. " ( 8 ) SECTIONS 167, 209 and 309 of Cr. P. C. emphasize the importance of expeditious disposal of cases including investigation and trial. ( 9 ) IT appears that the trial Courts are adjourning the cases for absence of the accused at the stage of furnishing copies of documents to the accused and also at the stage of framing the charges and recording the plea of accused on charges. Though it is a practice of the trial Courts to furnish copies of documents to the accused and also to frame the charges and record their plea on charges when all the accused are present before the Court, but it appears that there is no provision under the Code of Criminal procedure which envisages that unless all the accused are present before the Court the copies of documents cannot be furnished. Similarly, there appears to be no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure which says that no charges can be framed and plea of accused cannot be recorded in respect of the accused present before the Court for the absence of one or two accused. In a case where there are more number of accused, it may not be practicable to secure the presence of all the accused on a single day and the cases are being adjourned for months together and in some cases years together only for the purpose of securing the presence of all the accused. In a case where the number of accused is more than 50 or 100 such kind of difficulty may arise. Sometimes the accused also may play tactics and make some accused absent on a particular day to see that no charges are framed against the accused. In these circumstances, a pragmatic approach is required to be taken. In a case where the number of accused is more than 50 or 100 such kind of difficulty may arise. Sometimes the accused also may play tactics and make some accused absent on a particular day to see that no charges are framed against the accused. In these circumstances, a pragmatic approach is required to be taken. It may not be illegal or irregular to furnish copies of documents or to frame charges against the accused and record their plea on charges who are present before the Court and to adjourn the case to some other day and to furnish the copies of documents to the accused and to frame charges against those accused who were absent on the previous occasion. If this kind of procedure is followed, probably the delay which is being occurred for commencing the trial may be avoided. There is no need to appraise the importance of speedy trial. If the trial is not commenced within reasonable time and delayed for months and years together the important witnesses may die or ay not be available for any other reason. The witnesses may not remember all the facts. The fading of human memory also cannot be ruled out. The very criminal justice delivery system cannot achieve the purpose of rendering justice if the criminal trial is delayed for years together. If in a case the accused are innocent and they are falsely implicated such accused will be put to mental agony and untold misery and their families also would suffer. The victims and their family members may become frustrated. ( 10 ) AS far as the present case is concerned, the gist of the prosecution case is as follows: on 17-5-2008, A-1 noticed the vehicle a. P. 21 M 8434 by D-1 coming from Kapatralla village in opposite direction and he informed a-4 over phone. A-4 drove the lorry with high speed and hit the trax near Kotha bodupadu bus stop on 17-5-2008 at about 9. 20 hrs. A-1 along with other accused reached the spot in Sumo and mini lorry and attacked d-1 and his followers. A-1 hurled bomb on the trax vehicle of D-1 later he hacked D-1 with hunting sickle on his forehead. A-4 hacked D-1 with hunting sickle on his face. A-3 hacked D-1 with hunting sickle on his left hand. A-22 also hacked the D-1 with hunting sickle. A-1 hurled bomb on the trax vehicle of D-1 later he hacked D-1 with hunting sickle on his forehead. A-4 hacked D-1 with hunting sickle on his face. A-3 hacked D-1 with hunting sickle on his left hand. A-22 also hacked the D-1 with hunting sickle. A-23 hacked D-2 with hunting sickle. Remaining accused also participated in the commission of offence by hurling country made bombs and armed with hunting sickles and caused the death of D-1 to D-5 and D-7 to d-10 instantaneously. D-6, D-11 and L. W. 30 sustained severe bleeding injuries. The de facto complainant and other witnesses l. W. 24 to L. W. 29, L. W. 34 to L. W. 39 who are proceeding behind the vehicle of D-1, witnessed the ghastly incident and afraid of the same on seeing the death of above persons escaped from the vision of the accused. After completion of their plan successfully the accused left the place in TATA Sumo and mini lorry towards Kunnur village. ( 11 ) THUS, it is clear that the specific allegation against the petitioners herein, who are now seeking bail, is that they hurled country made bombs and armed with hunting sickles and caused the death of the deceased persons. No specific overt acts have been attributed against any one of these petitioners. Though it is a gruesome murder of eleven persons and the offence is grave, but in the above circumstances, I am inclined to order as follows. ( 12 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed. All the petitioners herein shall be enlarged on bail on each of their executing personal bonds for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pathikonda, kurnool District. After release, the petitioners shall not enter into the village Kapatralla, devanakonda Mandal, Kurnool District, unti further orders. The petitioners are also directed to report before the Station House officer, Devanakonda Police Station, on every sunday and Wednesday between 8. 00 a. m. and 9. 00 a. m. until further orders. After release, the petitioners shall not enter into the village Kapatralla, devanakonda Mandal, Kurnool District, unti further orders. The petitioners are also directed to report before the Station House officer, Devanakonda Police Station, on every sunday and Wednesday between 8. 00 a. m. and 9. 00 a. m. until further orders. If all the accused are not present before the Court on the day fixed for recording their plea on charges, the learned Additional Sessions judge is directed to frame the charges and record their plea against the accused, who are present before the Court and then to adjourn the case for the purpose of framing the charges and recording their plea against the absenting accused and complete the trial as early as possible as per the directions given by this Court in the earlier orders as referred in the above paras. petition is allowed