ORDER : 1. This application has been filed for grant of bail to the petitioner, who is accused in Nalanda Mahila P.S. case No. 15 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 370, 370-A, 376, 212, 109, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5 & 6 of I.T.P. Act. 2. Before proceeding further, certain facts are essential for consideration of this case : Earlier petitioner has been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 35951 of 2016, vide order dated 30.9.2016 and it appears that against the said order the State has moved the Hon’ble Apex Court in Cr. Appeal No. 1141 of 2016 and the Hon’ble Apex Court after hearing the parties a detailed order has been passed allowing the appeal and setting aside the (sic) of this Court and further directed that if respondent (petitioner here) has already been released, he shall surrender and/or taken into custody forthwith and in case, he is still in jail custody, he will continue in jail as consequence of the judgment. 3. The present application has been filed on behalf of petitioner stating that earlier his bail bond was cancelled by Hon’ble Apex Court as some material witnesses were to be examined. However, now the evidence has already been concluded and statements of accused persons were recorded and thereafter the defence has examined 14 witnesses within a period of one month. Argument of prosecution was concluded and in course of argument of defence, the defence has challenged the evidence of P.W.14 and electronic evidence, as Nodal Officers of the concerned Company has not been examined, thereafter prosecution has filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 20.6.2017 to summon the Nodal Officers of the concerned Company, which was finally rejected by learned trial court vide order dated 29.8.2017, against which the State has preferred Cr. Rev. No. 975 of 2017 before this Court, in which notice was issued and further proceeding before the trial court was stayed vide order dated 10.10.2017. Hence, there is no chance of disposal of Criminal Revision petition of the State in near future, it will cause unnecessary delay in conclusion of trial, hence this bail application is necessitated. 4. Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, learned Sr. Hence, there is no chance of disposal of Criminal Revision petition of the State in near future, it will cause unnecessary delay in conclusion of trial, hence this bail application is necessitated. 4. Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is no laches on the part of defence and he has co-operated in conclusion of trial and never demanded time and when case was posted for argument of the defence, prayer has been made and after rejection of the same the State has preferred Cr. Rev. and how much the State is interested in delaying the trial, will appear from the fact that case is still pending in the High Court. It has also been submitted that as per Article 21 of Constitution of India the petitioner is entitled for expeditious trial and due to lingering of trial the same has been curtailed. It has also been submitted that there was apprehension in the mind of Hon’ble Apex Court about security of the witnesses and also with a view to avoid tampering with the evidence and threatening of the witnesses, bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled but now, since evidence has been concluded and the case is posted for argument, as such, there is no chance of threatening the witnesses or tampering with the evidence, hence the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner the order was reserved. However, in the meantime, an I.A. No.2445 of 2017 has been filed on behalf of petitioner stating that in Cr. Revision No. 975 of 2017 this Court has allowed the State to convert the same into an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and, as such, it will cause much delay and session of Vidhan Sabha has been commenced and in support of his contention, he has annexed the notice, issued under signature of Secretary, Bihar Vidhan Sabha. It has been submitted that Vidhan Sabha will be convened for the period from 27.11.2017 to 1.12.2017, as such, the petitioner being Member may be allowed to participate in the proceeding of Vidhan Sabha as he being MLA of Vidhan Sabha. 6. Mr. Someshwar Dayal, APP has opposed the prayer for bail stating that there is no delay in conclusion of trial as this is the FIR of 2016 and trial has almost concluded. 6. Mr. Someshwar Dayal, APP has opposed the prayer for bail stating that there is no delay in conclusion of trial as this is the FIR of 2016 and trial has almost concluded. It has further been submitted that evidence of Nodal Officers is essential for just decision of the case, as such, State has filed a petition, which was rejected and State has moved before Hon’ble Court. It has further been submitted that in this case bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled by Hon’ble Apex Court and, as such, propriety demands that if the petitioner is so interested for granting bail he should move before the Apex Court and not before this Court and in support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another : (2004) 7 SCC 528 and a decision dated 1.5.2013 of this Court in Cr.Misc. No. 5 of 2013 (Md. Shahabuddin vs. State of Bihar). 7. In reply to the said contention of State, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner cannot be precluded from filing fresh bail application on the ground that prayer for bail was rejected earlier by the High Court or Hon’ble Apex Court and since the evidence of the prosecution is closed, there is no cause of apprehension. 8. Having heard both sides, this application for bail and I.A. No. 2445 of 2017 are being disposed of by this common order. In this case as noticed above bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled by Hon’ble Apex Court and further the case is still pending for argument and it is not concluded. It further appears that State has filed a revision application against the order of learned trial court for examination of Nodal Officers, which has been directed to be converted into an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There does not appear to be an intentional delay on the part of the State. Earlier also there was threat to the prosecutrix and her family members and bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled on that ground. On considering that interest of society is over the personal interest of the accused. Moreover, propriety demands that the petitioner ought to have moved before the Hon’ble Apex Court as his bail bonds were cancelled by Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. On considering that interest of society is over the personal interest of the accused. Moreover, propriety demands that the petitioner ought to have moved before the Hon’ble Apex Court as his bail bonds were cancelled by Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. Accordingly, this application as well as I.A.No.2445 of 2017 is dismissed.