JUDGMENT Vipin Sinha,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in case crime no. 69 of 2011, U/s 302, 307, 34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Pipri, District Kaushambi. 3. This is the second bail application. The first bail application no. 12450 of 2013 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 2.4.2014 and while rejecting the first bail application, a specific direction was issued for the trial to be decided expeditiously, if possible within a period of four months. 4. The present bail application is being pressed only on the ground that in spite of specific direction of this Court vide order dated 2.4.2014, the trial has not yet been concluded and the applicant is in jail since 10.6.2011. 5. From the perusal of the FIR and the present bail application, it is clear that the applicant has been named in the FIR and a specific role has been assigned to him and the applicant is the main assailant. Moreover, no new ground or subsequent development has been brought on record apart from the fact that the trial has not yet been concluded. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the present bail application is being rejected. 7. However, looking to the fact that the applicant is in jail since 10.6.2011, it is directed that the trial of the present case pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, if possible preferably within a period of one year, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and 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 . Let a copy of the order be certified to the concerned court below.