ORDER : This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.7 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.114/1998 of Shahapur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of the complaint are that, On 22.05.1998 on the basis of information about the dacoity gang operating in the area of the station jurisdiction went out for patrolling and when they were on patrolling, at about 3.30 a.m., on Dornahalli village road near Milk processing center, a group of seven people were standing on the road, wearing black clothes and holding sticks. It is alleged that the said group of people was standing with an intention to commit dacoity and on the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered against the accused persons. After the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.651/1998 on the file of JMFC, Court, Shahapur. As the petitioner was absconding, the split up charge sheet came to be filed and in other cases, trial was held and other accused persons were acquitted. Even though in the case of the petitioner NBWs were issued, the efforts made by the Court to secure the petitioner were ended in futile. Thereafter, the Court issued a proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., and ultimately on 28.11.2016 the police apprehended the petitioner and as such, he is in custody and has moved the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent State. 4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that though the petitioner was residing in the given address, no notices or summons were served on him. The petitioner is an agriculturist and he was not absconding. He has further contended that the petitioner did not know that the jurisdictional Court under the split up case has tried the case against the other accused persons. He has also contended that petitioner is suffering from various ailments due to his age and now if he is detained in custody, he would suffer and it would cause inconvenience for him to stay in the jail. The petitioner has got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of he being absconded. He has also contended that petitioner is suffering from various ailments due to his age and now if he is detained in custody, he would suffer and it would cause inconvenience for him to stay in the jail. The petitioner has got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of he being absconded. It is further contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State vehemently contended that petitioner who has been shown as accused No.7 was absconding since from the date of registration of the case and was not available either for investigation or interrogation. The petitioner has deliberately absconded and with great efforts, now the police have apprehended the petitioner after eighteen years. If the petitioner is released on bail, he may again abscond and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I have perused the records produced along with the petition. 7. The records disclose the fact that a case was registered against the petitioner and other accused persons in Crime No.114/1998 of Shahapur Police Station on the basis of the complaint dated 22.05.1998 and thereafter, the split up case was registered against the petitioner in C.C.No.34/2011. The records also disclose that after the split up case was registered and renumbered, notice and NBWs were issued by the learned JMFC, Shahapur, against the petitioner and when all the efforts were ended in futile, at a later stage, the concerned Court has exercised its power under Section 82 of Cr.P.C., and the proclamations have also been issued. As to what happened with regard to the proceedings under proclamation is not forthcoming from the records. On going through the records, it would indicate that with great difficulty the Court has secured the petitioner/accused No.7 and now he is in custody. As to what happened with regard to the proceedings under proclamation is not forthcoming from the records. On going through the records, it would indicate that with great difficulty the Court has secured the petitioner/accused No.7 and now he is in custody. When the case is said to be of the year 1998 and the petitioner was absconding since then, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may again abscond and he may not be available for trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the split case the other accused persons have already been acquitted and in that light, if the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as quickly as possible it would meet the ends of justice. 8. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is dismissed. 9. However, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as quickly as possible but not later than the outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.