JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner accused of offences under Sections 302, 307, 450, 323, 325,140 IPC, has moved this second application for bail. 2. The first bail application as moved on behalf of the petitioner was rejected with observations by this Court on 24.11.2009 in the following order:- "The learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed on the bail plea of the petitioner particularly with the submissions that the petitioner is in custody since the year 2006 and then the trial of this case relating to offence under Sections 302, 307, 450, 323, 325,140 IPC proceeded too but, for the arrest of certain other accused persons later, the witnesses have been re-summoned and the process of further trial is only leading persons having been granted bail, and no specific injury in relation to the weapon attributed to the petitioner being directly available on the record, the petitioner also deserves to be granted bail. After taking into comprehension the totality of the facts and circumstances and more particularly the fact that as many as 13 witnesses have already been examined in the matter and looking to the nature of accusations, it does not appear appropriate to grant indulgence to the petitioner in this bail application but then, looking to the age of the sessions trial and the overall facts and circumstances, it is considered appropriate and hence observed that if the petitioner makes the request before the learned Trial Court for expeditious proceedings, the same be given due consideration and the matter be attempted to be decided with expedition. With the observations aforesaid, this bail application moved on behalf of the petitioner Sita Ram S/o Deva Ram under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands rejected" 3. It is pointed out that the matter is still lingering in the trial particularly for supplementary charge-sheets having been filed and the witnesses having been re-summoned. It is also submitted that the co-accused persons have already been granted bail and no specific injury in relation to the weapon attributed to the petitioner is available on record. 4. It is submitted that in any case, from the evidence available on record, accusation of causing fatal injury is not directly available against the present petitioner. The counsel has referred to the statement of the witnesses hitherto recorded including that of PW-3 Shrawan Kumar and PW-4 Teeja. 5. 4. It is submitted that in any case, from the evidence available on record, accusation of causing fatal injury is not directly available against the present petitioner. The counsel has referred to the statement of the witnesses hitherto recorded including that of PW-3 Shrawan Kumar and PW-4 Teeja. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has of course, opposed the bail application but could not dispute the facts that the matter is still pending in the trial with several witnesses remaining to be examined and that at least 9 co-accused person having been granted bail. The accusation against the petitioner is not directly and as such distinguishable from several of the co-accused persons who have been granted bail particularly Chatraram, Dhannaram, Deeparam, Deluram & Ratiram. 6. Without any comment on the merits of the case, in the totality of facts and circumstances when the petitioner is said to be in custody since 06.12.2006 and the trial still pending and looking to the nature of accusation, so far the present petitioner is concerned, it does not appear just and proper to continue with his detention any further. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Sita Ram S/o Deva Ram be released on bail in relation to FIR No. 368/2006 P.S. Dungargarh provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever and wherever called upon to do so till the completion of trial.Bail Application allowed. *******