JUDGMENT Vipin Sinha,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This is the second bail application moved by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 65 of 2013, under Sections 302 I.P.C., P.S. Mirhachi, District Etah. Criminal Misc. First Bail Application No. 32829 of 2013 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2014. 3. I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the bail rejection order. 4. From the perusal of record, it appears that no fresh ground has been made out nor there is any subsequent development for grant of bail. The applicant has been named in the F.I.R. Specific role has been assigned to him and it is a day light incident. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and after perusing the averments as contained in the present bail application, this Court is of the opinion that no new ground for enlarging the applicant on bail is made out. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case for interference by this Court at this stage. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, the application for bail is rejected. 7. However, it is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case, which is pending before the court below be decided expeditiously, if possible within a period of one year, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and also in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 .