JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is behind the bars since September, 2005. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the case under Sections 307, 326, 324 and 323 IPC was registered against him at Sriganganagar, but later on, when charges were framed by the District Judge, petitioner was discharged for offence under Section 326 IPC, but charge of Sections 307, 324 and 323 IPC was framed against the petitioner and he is behind the bars and after framing charges, trial has not commenced so far. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while rejecting the earlier bail application of the petitioner, it was observed in the order that petitioner is behind the bars for more than two years and nine months. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the learned trial court was directed to record the statement of the complainant first and after recording statement of complainant, the petitioner will be free to file fresh bail application. 4. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that while rejecting the second bail application, it was expected from the trial court that trial will be completed within four months. But neither trial is completed nor the order passed by this Court on 01st April, 2008 has been complied with by the trial court. Therefore, it is prayed that matter may be decided on merit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court towards the various judgments of this Court reported in 1999 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 89 (Rajendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan) , 1997 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 302 (Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan) , 2000 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 273 (Gurmuk Singh S/o Surain Singh v. The State of Rajasthan) , RCC April, 1992 p.190 (Jai Singh v. State of Rajasthan) and 2009 (1) Criminal Court Cases 165 (Raj.) (Sitaram v. State of Rajasthan) . 6. First of all, it is made clear that the matter of grant of bail depends upon the discretion of the Court and the bail application is required to be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of particular case. 6. First of all, it is made clear that the matter of grant of bail depends upon the discretion of the Court and the bail application is required to be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of particular case. Therefore, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present circumstances of the case because this Court is required to see the seriousness of the offence. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. Further, it is argued that in this case, evidence recorded by the investigating officer clearly speaks that no offence is made out against the petitioner for committing offence under Section 307 IPC and petitioner is behind the bars for last more than four years, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail and this fourth bail application may kindly be allowed. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant while inviting attention of this Court towards the order dated 12th January, 2009 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Fourth Bail Appl. No. 5029/2008 filed by co-accused Ram Ratan submitted that the said bail application moved on behalf of co-accused Ram Ratan was rejected even after he was discharged from the offence under Section 307 IPC by the trial court at the time of framing charge. 9. Learned counsel for the State submits that even if the co-accused was discharged from the charge of Section 307 IPC, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the fourth bail application while taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the State that though this Court has passed an order for completing the trial within four months, but record of the case was summoned by this Court in revision petition filed by one Ram Ratan co-accused, therefore, the record is lying in the High Court, therefore, the order passed by this Court for completing trial within four months was not complied with. 11. Learned counsels for the State and complainant further submit that the bail application of co-accused against whom no charge was framed under Section 307 IPC was dismissed, therefore, the case of petitioner is not distinguishable from the case of Ram Ratan co-accused. 11. Learned counsels for the State and complainant further submit that the bail application of co-accused against whom no charge was framed under Section 307 IPC was dismissed, therefore, the case of petitioner is not distinguishable from the case of Ram Ratan co-accused. In view of the fact that record of the case was summoned by the High Court in revision petition filed by the co-accused, therefore, trial has not commenced. In this view of the matter, prosecution cannot be blamed for delay in trial. 12. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties, but looking to the seriousness of the offence and the way in which occurrence took place, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, the fourth bail application is rejected.Bail Application Rejected. *******