JUDGMENT 1. - Present application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in a case arising out of F.I.R. No.15/2011, registered at Police Station, Narainpur, District Alwar, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 326, 307, 336, 452, 427 and 447 I.P.C. 2. This Court on 11.12.2013 had passed the following order:- "Against the co-accused of the petitioners trial has proceeded. Ten witnesses have been examined in May 2012. Investigating Officer is directed to file an affidavit as to why present petitioners were not arrested? A show cause notice is also issued to the Investigating Officer why cost should not be imposed upon him, for dereliction in duty. List on 20th December, 2013. Copy of this order is handed over to Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mahla, learned Public Prosecutor for compliance." 3. In pursuance thereof, Investigating Officer has filed an affidavit. It is stated in the affidavit that after lodging of the F.I.R., the statements of independent witnesses were recorded. Opinion of the Medical Jurist was obtained. As per opinion, injured Shyam Lal had suffered a serious injury, which was declared as dangerous to life. Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused, namely Jairam, Ramavatar, Dalu @ Dalchand, Chhitar and Pooran; and qua the remaining accused kept investigation pending under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. It is further stated in the affidavit that since search was being made to apprehend the accused, charge-sheet was not submitted against them and investigation was kept pending under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. 4. Unusual practice is being adopted by the Investigating Officers in the State of Rajasthan, they became adjudicators and at their whim and fancy submit charge-sheet against some accused named by the complainant and keep investigation in abeyance, qua the other accused, named under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. on the pretext that further investigation is to carried. This is a mere excuse, further investigation is kept pending because accused are not arrested. The right course for the Investigating Agency is to adhere to provision under Section 299 Cr.P.C. 5. Once the trial proceed against one set of accused and is near culmination or is concluded, then charge-sheet is filed against the remaining accused under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. 6. Thus, for the same incident, the trial Court has to hold the trial twice or thrice. Once the trial proceed against one set of accused and is near culmination or is concluded, then charge-sheet is filed against the remaining accused under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. 6. Thus, for the same incident, the trial Court has to hold the trial twice or thrice. A lot of energy and time of the Court is being wasted to hold trial of the same case again. Witnesses are also put to inconvenience. When the infrastructure of the Courts is limited, Judicial Officer are already burdened with mounting arrears of cases and dockets are exploding, the Courts cannot be saddled with unnecessary work. This Court has number of times deprecated the approach adopted by the Investigating Officers in the State and had issued direction to the Director General of Police to issue necessary instructions and same has been of no avail. 7. Time has come to raise an alarm bell that henceforth the conduct of the Investigating Officer to keep the trial pending against accused, who have not been arrested, shall not be acceptable. 8. Consequently, cost of Rs. 10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand Only] is imposed upon the erring Police Officials. 9. The Superintendent of Police, Alwar shall deposit the aforesaid cost before the trial Court. The cost, so deposited shall be remitted to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur so that it can be utilised for providing free legal aid to the needy. 10. The Superintendent of Police, Alwar shall also hold an inquiry and determine as to which official/officials were responsible, and shall recover cost from the salary of the concerned official or officials as may be determined during the enquiry. 11. The trial Court shall also take effective steps for recovery of cost. 12. Now coming to the merits of the case, in the present case, it is stated in the F.I.R. that one Ramavatar had caused injuries to Shyam Lal. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that so far as the petitioners are concerned, they were only present at the spot and they have not caused any injury. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that Ramavatar had already been released on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench, vide S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No.5276/2013, decided on May 31, 2013. 14. Petitioners are stated to be in custody since 28.11.2013. 15. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that Ramavatar had already been released on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench, vide S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No.5276/2013, decided on May 31, 2013. 14. Petitioners are stated to be in custody since 28.11.2013. 15. Considering the fact that as per F.I.R., the petitioners have not caused any injury in the occurrence and are in custody for more than one month and the trial will take a long time to conclude, this Court is of the view that further detention of the present petitioners, as under trial, is not warranted. 16. Consequently, the present application is accepted and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.Bail application allowed. *******