ORDER : Dr. A.K. Mishra, J. 1. Heard Mr. Pitambar Acharya, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gopal Krushna Mohanty, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. S.N. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for opposite party-State. 2. This is a successive bail petition U/s. 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner Krushna Chandra Nayak after rejection of last one on 4.1.2019 in BLAPL No. 764 of 2018. He has been implicated in Chatrapur P.S. Case No. 131 of 2017, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 308 of 2017 of the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chatrapur, U/ss. 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302 and 120-B read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and U/s. 25 of the Arms Act. 3. This successive bail petition is filed on the self-same ground as urged in the earlier bail petition that there is no prima facie case of conspiracy and the petitioner is unable to get fair trial, as there is no male member to look after his ailing wife and children. Learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Acharya relies upon a decision reported, in (2005) 2 SCC 13 : 2005 (I) OLR (SC) 325 : Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu in support of his contention that there is no material with regards to conspiracy, inasmuch as the co-accused statement is not a substantive piece of evidence and for that he vehemently urged that since the petitioner is a member of political party, he has been harassed and falsely implicated in this case by the ruling party. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner on being granted interim bail has not abused the same, for which there is no chance of absconding. 3.A. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail stating that the petitioner is a potentiary to influence the witnesses of the trial. 3.B. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel opposed the bail referring some statements of the witnesses and contended that charge is yet to be framed. 4. This being a successive bail petition, fresh ground is necessary to maintain it. The bail application was rejected by the learned trial court on 12.01.2018. By the time of consideration of last bail petition on 04.01.2019 chargesheet was already filed. But charge is yet to be framed after commitment. 4. This being a successive bail petition, fresh ground is necessary to maintain it. The bail application was rejected by the learned trial court on 12.01.2018. By the time of consideration of last bail petition on 04.01.2019 chargesheet was already filed. But charge is yet to be framed after commitment. As the contention revolves around the prima facie case for offence U/s. 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, it is found that the factum of material available from the statements of informant and other witnesses U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. prima facie establishes the criminal conspiracy. Further, there is no dispute that there was severe political animosity between two groups. In the decision reported in (2019) I SCC (Crl.) 325 : 2019 (I) OLR (SC) 1065 : the case of State of Orissa vs. Mahimananda Mishra 18.09.2018, while cancelling bail Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:- "11. It is common knowledge that generally direct evidence may not be available to prove conspiracy, inasmuch as the act of conspiracy takes place secretly. Only the conspirators would be knowing about the conspiracy. However, the Court, while evaluating the material, may rely upon other material which suggests conspiracy. Such material will be on record during the course of trial. However, at this stage, prima facie, the Court needs to take into consideration the overall material while considering the prayer for bail. 12. xxxxxxx It is by now well settled that at the time of considering an application for bail, the Court must take into account certain factors such as the existence of a prima facie case against the accused, the gravity of the allegations, position and status of the accused, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the Courts as well as the criminal antecedents of the accused. It is also well settled that the Court must not go into deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail. All that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused (See the judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav Vrs. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2018) 12 SCC 129 .)" Long custody period, minis nature of case, alone cannot be a potential ground to maintain successive bail petition. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2018) 12 SCC 129 .)" Long custody period, minis nature of case, alone cannot be a potential ground to maintain successive bail petition. In the wake of above analysis, I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioner in this successive bail petition. Keeping in view the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain & Anr. Vs. Union of India, reported in 2017 (5) SCC 702 : 2017 (I) OLR(SC) 1048, the lower court is directed to speed up the trial to ensure its completion within six months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to renew the bail prayer in the trial court if the trial is not completed within the aforesaid period which shall be considered on its own merit, without being influenced by the observation in this order. The BLAPL is accordingly disposed of.