ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Accused-petitioner, an under-trial, languishing in jail for last more than eight years, has laid this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The first bail application of the petitioner bearing No. 6764/17 was dismissed as not pressed on 10th of January 2017. 2. Bare necessary facts of the case are that pursuant to investigation into CR No. 310/09, lodged with Police Station Sadar, Barmer, for offences under Sections 5/9-B, 6/9-B of the Explosives Act 1884, 4, 5, 6 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908, 7/25(1) (D)(1-AA), 29 of the Arms Act, 3/10, 13, 18, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2008 and 153-A, 120-B of the IPC. Initially, five accused persons including petitioner were apprehended and subsequently ten other accused persons were also arrested. Upon completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against all of them including the petitioner for aforesaid offences. Presently, petitioner alongwith other co-accused persons is facing trial in Sessions Case No. 04/2016 (37/2010), pending before Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Barmer (for short, learned trial Court'). 3. Arguing on this second bail application, it is contended by learned Senior Counsel that petitioner was arrested on 13th of September 2009 and since then more than eight years have elapsed, therefore, considering his long incarceration, he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Learned Senior Counsel has further urged that so far during trial, out of 80 listed prosecution witnesses, only 51 have been examined, and therefore, conclusion of trial is not in offing in near future. Elaborating his submissions in this behalf, learned Senior Counsel contends that this second bail application requires objective consideration. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that despite directions of the Court dated 13th of January 2015, issued while considering first bail application of co-accused Vikram Singh for expediting trial, trial is still proceeding at snail's pace is yet another plausible ground and material change in the circumstances for favourable consideration of the second bail application. While emphasizing long incarceration of petitioner for espousing his cause for grant of bail, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in Hussain & Anr. v. Union of India [ (2017) 5 SCC 702 ]. While emphasizing long incarceration of petitioner for espousing his cause for grant of bail, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in Hussain & Anr. v. Union of India [ (2017) 5 SCC 702 ]. It is also argued by learned Senior Counsel that co-accused Jagmohan alias Rinku has been enlarged on bail by this Court by taking into consideration factum of long duration of incarceration during trial. 4. Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General has vehemently opposed second bail application of the petitioner. It is argued by learned Addl. Advocate General that learned trial Court is proceeding with trial with utmost promptitude and the summoned prosecution witnesses are being examined regularly. Learned Addl. Advocate General has also urged that the case of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable from co-accused Jagmohan alias Rinku. While referring to recovery of explosive RDX and fire arms upon information of petitioner under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that his involvement in commission of alleged offences is per se discernible. Taking exception to the role of petitioner in commission of serious offences, including offences under Section 3/10, 13, 18 & 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2008, learned Addl. Advocate General contends that it would not be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the interest of security and integrity of the Nation. Learned Addl. Advocate General has also submitted that offences attributed to the petitioner are of grave and serious nature for which maximum punishment of life term imprisonment is prescribed, and therefore, this second bail application of the petitioner is liable to be nixed. 5. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and perused the materials available on record, including the statements of witnesses recorded during trial. 6. While it is true that petitioner is in custody since last more than eight years and trial is still in vogue but then considering the material available on record, prima facie, his case is on par with co-accused Jagmohan alias Rinku. Although requisite directions have been issued to the learned trial Court to proceed in the trial with utmost urgency and conclude the same at the earliest but indisputably remaining 29 prosecution witnesses are to be examined in the trial. Although requisite directions have been issued to the learned trial Court to proceed in the trial with utmost urgency and conclude the same at the earliest but indisputably remaining 29 prosecution witnesses are to be examined in the trial. Therefore, while reiterating the earlier directions, it is ordered that learned trial Court should proceed with the trial with promptitude for concluding it at the earliest. If need be, trial is to be taken on day to day basis. The conclusion of sessions trial within a stipulated duration is also mandated by supreme Court in Hussain & Anr. (supra). 7. Be that as it may, in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and alleged criminal delinquencies of the petitioner having some ramification on integrity and security of the Nation, without expressing any opinion on merits, I feel dissuaded to accept bail application at this stage. 8. Resultantly, this second bail application of the petitioner is hereby nixed. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. 9. Before parting, it is made clear that in case trial is not concluded within next three months then petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for grant of bail after the said period.