JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - This is fifth bail application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 arising out of FIR No. RC.7(5)2011-SC.1/CBI/New Delhi, registered at Police Station CBI, New Delhi for offence under Section 120-B read with Section 364, 302, 201 IPC. 2. After the second bail application was dismissed, an SLP was preferred before the Supreme Court and while dismissing the SLP, vide order dated 02/02/2016, following observations were made by the Supreme Court:- "The special leave petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the High Court after three months in the event the trial for the accused does not progress in the manner as directed by the High Court." 3. After three months, third bail application was preferred before this Court on the ground that the trial was not proceeding further as directed by this Court. It was stated that only 100 witnesses have been examined and no incriminating evidence had come on record. While dismissing the third bail application, the Court noted the statement of learned counsel for the CBI that out of 298 witnesses, 123 witnesses have been examined and was satisfied that the trial is on going as per the order passed by this Court dated 08/07/2014. 4. Fourth bail application was preferred by the accused-petitioner which was dismissed vide order dated 15/05/2017 and it was noted that only 13 witnesses have remained to be examined. The CBI had dropped 100 witnesses in March, 2017. It was also noted that Indira Bishnoi, the real sister of the accused-petitioner was absconding. 5. The present fifth bail application has been filed now. However, when the case came up before the coordinate Bench, which was hearing the earlier bail applications, the petitioner levelled allegations against the Hon''ble Judge in a letter addressed to the Court and therefore, the Court noted "The petitioner wanted the case transferred from this Court by making uncharitable assertions and therefore, this fifth bail application is ordered to be place before another Bench after taking orders from Hon''ble the Chief Justice." 6. The matter was thereafter placed before the Hon''ble Chief Justice and the Hon''ble Chief Justice vide order dated 15/11/2017 directed the matter to be listed before the regular Bench and the case has thus come up before this Court. 7. The matter was thereafter placed before the Hon''ble Chief Justice and the Hon''ble Chief Justice vide order dated 15/11/2017 directed the matter to be listed before the regular Bench and the case has thus come up before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been a material change in the circumstances since the last bail application was dismissed on 15/05/2017. It is further submitted that as per the order dated 08/07/2014, day-to-day trial was directed by this Court to be conduced in the matter. The Supreme Court vide order dated 03/05/2016 observed that the trial be concluded within a period of one year. The CBI also had given a statement that they would cooperate an conclude the trial within one year on 19/05/2016 but there is no chance of the trial being concluded in near future. 8. It is stated that one of the co-accused Indira Bishnoi, who was absconding, has been now arrested and third supplementary charge-sheet has been filed by the CBI on 13/08/2017 wherein the additional witnesses have been named who would be required to be examined Even the charge has to be now framed against the concerned co-accused Indira Bishnoi. 9. Apart from above, it is submitted that the CBI has now prayed for summoning a witness who is based in USA and is required to be summoned through Foreign Ministry as he is from FBI of US Government. The trial court has therefore, given a date of 20/01/2018 for summoning the said witness and therefore, in no case the trial can conclude before the said witness is examined. 10. It is further stated that the petitioner had been earlier discharged by the CBI but on account of the observations made by the Court his bail bonds were cancelled and the petitioner was also charged of the same offence under Section 302, 120-B, 364, 201 IPC as the other co-accused persons. It is submitted that the observations were made by the High Court in revision petition which were made the basis for arraying the petitioner again as an accused. The observations are as under:- "14. This Court has heard the matter and also perused the record. In this case, some of the witnesses have stated that accused Malkhan Singh had given the responsibility to accused Paras Ram to eliminate Bhanwari Devi. The observations are as under:- "14. This Court has heard the matter and also perused the record. In this case, some of the witnesses have stated that accused Malkhan Singh had given the responsibility to accused Paras Ram to eliminate Bhanwari Devi. Statement of witness Deva Ram also may be read in this regard. Similarly, witness Kusum Bishnoi states that Paras Ram was in knowledge of proposed act of murder in the morning of 2.9.2011, meaning thereby, he was knowing at that time that Bhanwari Devi is going to be killed in near future. Without being part of the conspiracy to abduction and murder, he could not have known this fact in advance. It is also on record in the statements of witnesses in this case that accused Paras Ram had exchanged the number of calls with other accused-persons of the case soon after the knowledge of existence of a Video CD of illicit relation of one accused with Bhanwari Devi, which was published in news broadcast of ETV. It is also on record that last call dialed by Bhanwari Devi before her death was also to Paras Ram as per prosecution story. 15. Confessional statements of accused Sahi Ram, Vishna Ram, Kailash and statements of other witnesses Shyam La, Deva Ram, Lakha Ram have also been ignored by the trial court. If we go through these statements, charge of abduction and murder and criminal conspiracy should have been framed against Om prakash and Paras Ram also. If a lady was abducted by some of the accused-persons and she was then murdered by some of the accused-persons and then her body was unscrupulously disposed of by some of the accused persons, then all these accused persons should have been charged for conspiracy, abduction and murder of the lady and causing disappearance of evidence and at the stage of charge, benefit of doubt could not have been and should not have been given to any of the accused-persons. SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 1022/2012 & other five connected revisions. 15 including Om Prakash and Paras Ram. SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 1022/2012 stands disposed of accordingly." 11. However, the said witness Deva Ram, as noted above, has been dropped by the CBI while Kusum Bishnoi has already been declared hostile. 12. SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 1022/2012 & other five connected revisions. 15 including Om Prakash and Paras Ram. SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 1022/2012 stands disposed of accordingly." 11. However, the said witness Deva Ram, as noted above, has been dropped by the CBI while Kusum Bishnoi has already been declared hostile. 12. It is further stated that since third supplementary charge-sheet has been filed as regards Indira Bishnoi, de-novo trial has to be continued and therefore, it cannot be said that the trial can be completed in terms of the directions passed by this Court or by the Supreme Court. 13. Per-contra, learned counsel for the CBI submits that there is no delay on the part of the CBI and in order to conclude the trial at the earliest, 100 witnesses have already been dropped and therefore, the CBI cannot be held responsible merely because third supplementary charge-sheet has been filed after arresting Indira Bishnoi and to state that the trial is not in progress is misconceived and as far as CBI is concerned, only four Investigating Officers and one FBI Officer are required to be examined. As regards Indira Bishnoi, only four new witnesses are required to be examined. The summons with regard to FBI officer have already been issued and there being a statutory period of three months required for calling for a foreign witness, the date was given for 20/01/2018. However, looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence and taking into consideration that earlier the bail applications of the accused-petitioner were dismissed four times, there is no reason for this Court to grant indulgence of bail to the accused-petitioner as on date. 14. Learned counsel for both the parties have relied upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in support of the submissions made by them, however, the case law, relied upon by them, shall be referred appropriately hereinafter. 15. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned counsel for the CBI. 16. The Supreme Court, while hearing the SLP No. 9303/2013 for cancellation of bail granted to one of the co-accused Reshma Ram Bishnoi by CBI, made following observations vide order dated 19/05/2016 :- "None appears for the petitioner-Union of India through C.B.I even on the second call. It appears that bail was granted by the High Court on 23-5-2013 to the respondent-herein. It appears that bail was granted by the High Court on 23-5-2013 to the respondent-herein. Since then no further application or any point has been urged before this Court nor to the effect that if the bail is not cancelled and/or the impugned order is not set aside, the petitioner would be prejudiced. We have been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the trial is in progress. In view of that, we think it would be appropriate for us only to request the concerned trial court to conclude the trial within a period of one year from today. No further order is necessary at this stage since the respondent is enjoying the bail for almost three years. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the afore-stated terms. 17. Another order was passed on 22/07/2016 which is quoted as under:- "For the reasons stated in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 10087/2016 for restoration, the Special Leave Petition is restored to its original number. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Union of India through CBI. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on merits." 18. The accused petitioner was arrested on 02/12/2011 but was discharged on 04/10/2012 and thereafter again arrested on 06/05/2014 and is in jail since then. The 16 other co-accused are also in jail since the date of their arrest. 19. The allegations against all the accused are similar except Amar Chand while one coaccused Reshma Ram has been enlarged on bail. 20. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirath Singh vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1984 (SC) 372 where the Court was examining the conditions as to when the bail can be cancelled. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Bakshish Ram & Anr. vs. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 969 of 2009), decided on 08/05/2009 wherein the case was being examined relating to ground of bail during pendency of the appeal. The facts of both the said cases are different and distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (Criminal Appeal No. 2178/2011), decided on 23/11/2011 wherein it was held as under:- "26. The facts of both the said cases are different and distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (Criminal Appeal No. 2178/2011), decided on 23/11/2011 wherein it was held as under:- "26. When the under trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question is : whether the same is possible in the present case. There are seventeen accused persons. Statement of the witnesses runs to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet. This Court, in the case of State of Kerala vs. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784 , has stated :- "15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken''s novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille." 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Hussain and anr. vs. Union of India (Criminal Appeal No. 509/2017), decided on 09/03/2017 : 2017 (2) RLW 2317 (SC) wherein while considering the case of NDPS, it was held as under:- "11. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. This Court has held that while a person in custody for a grave offence may not be released if trial is delayed, trial has to be expedited or bail has to be granted in such cases. 12. Timely delivery of justice is a part of human rights. Denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice. Directions of this Court in Noor Mohammed vs. Jethanand and anr. are as follows: " 34..........Therefore, we request the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Rajasthan as well as the other learned Chief Justices to conceive and adopt a mechanism, regard being had to the priority of cases, to avoid such inordinate delays in matters which can really be dealt with in an expeditious manner. Putting a step forward is a step towards the destination. A sensible individual inspiration and a committed collective endeavour would indubitably help in this regard. Neither less, nor more." 23. Learned counsel for the CBI relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and anr. Putting a step forward is a step towards the destination. A sensible individual inspiration and a committed collective endeavour would indubitably help in this regard. Neither less, nor more." 23. Learned counsel for the CBI relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and anr. : 2005 CRI.L.J. 944 ; Satish Jaggi vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2007) 11 SCC 195 and Chaman Lal vs. State of UP and anr., AIR 2004 SC 4267 . In the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and anr. (supra), it was observed as under:- 18. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of non bailable offences are entitled for bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so. In that process a person whose application for enlargement on bail is once rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail if there is a change in the fact situation. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing requires that such persons to be released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the courts can do so. 19. The principles of res judicata and such analogous principles although are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, but the courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country. 19. The principles of res judicata and such analogous principles although are not applicable in a criminal proceeding, but the courts are bound by the doctrine of judicial discipline having regard to the hierarchical system prevailing in our country. The findings of a higher court or a coordinate bench must receive serious consideration at the hands of the court entertaining a bail application at a later stage when the same had been rejected earlier. In such an event, the courts must give due weight to the grounds which weighed with the former or higher court in rejecting the bail application. Ordinarily, the issues which had been canvassed earlier would not be permitted to be re-agitated on the same grounds, as the same it would lead to a speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice and may lead to forum hunting. 20. The decisions given by a superior forum, undoubtedly, is binding on the subordinate fora on the same issue even in bail matters unless of course, there is a material change in the fact situation calling for a different view being taken. Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the accused that in view the guaranty conferred on a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is open to the aggrieved person to make successive bail applications even on a ground already rejected by courts earlier including the Apex Court of the country. 21. Next question in this case is: whether in the earlier proceedings, Courts including this Court, had given a finding in regard to the existence of prima facie case against the respondent or not ?. If so, has the respondent brought on record any fresh material either factual or legal so as to empower the High Court to reconsider the earlier orders ? " 24. If so, has the respondent brought on record any fresh material either factual or legal so as to empower the High Court to reconsider the earlier orders ? " 24. Taking guidance from the above judgments and taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds that while the case of the petitioner has already been examined earlier relating to whether he was required to be released on bail and as this Court has already given a finding that prima-facie case exists against the petitioner and therefore bail cannot be granted to him on that count. The question which remains for this Court to examine is only whether there was any fresh material available for consideration to reach to a conclusion otherwise and whether there was a material delay in conclusion of the trial. 25. Admittedly, the evidence which has come on record subsequent to passing of the earlier order does not vary the position of the accused petitioner. No such evidence has come on record to show that he is not involved in the case. The only new change of circumstances is of having included one other co-accused namely; Indira Bishnoi who is real sister of the accused-petitioner. Be that as it may, it would not affect case of the petitioner at all and the same will have to be examined on the basis of the evidence which has come on record. However, from the introduction or inclusion of Indira Bishnoi as an accused, it cannot be said a new circumstance for which bail can be granted to the petitioner. 26. The other question is regarding delay in concluding the trial. While it is true that the Supreme Court has directed for concluding the trial within one year, however, it is noted that the new circumstances, which have been brought in, due to arrest of one absconding accused, were not before the Court at that relevant time, moreover, the purpose of directing the trial to be concluded within one year was because the accused who had been released on bail, may not delay the trial. Even otherwise, it is seen that the CBI has taken all necessary steps for concluding the trial by even dropping witnesses. This Court would be slow in interfering with the proper and true disposal of a criminal trial. Even otherwise, it is seen that the CBI has taken all necessary steps for concluding the trial by even dropping witnesses. This Court would be slow in interfering with the proper and true disposal of a criminal trial. It is always expected that the trial should be concluded expeditiously but a straight jacket time formula cannot be laid down, specially when the case involves circumstantial evidence and statements of witnesses to be recorded who may be living out of India. This Court is satisfied that the trial is going on at a correct pace and while the notices have been issued for one of the witnesses to be examined in January, 2018, one cannot presume that in-between no other witness shall be examined by the trial court. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is illusory and does not have a factual basis. 27. In view of what has been observed and discussed herein above as well as the case law laid down, as referred herein above, the present fifth bail application deserves to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed with the observation that the trial court shall continue the trial on day-to-day basis. 28. Bail application dismissed.