The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in favor of the applicant due to the trial court's failure to conclude the trial expeditiously.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Mr. Soham Joshi, learned Additional Public Prosecution waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. This successive bail application has been filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. I-119 of 2014 registered with Palanpur City East Police Station, District Banaskantha, for offences punishable under sections-302, 143, 147, 148, 149 and 120B of the IPC.

3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that this Court by order dated 19.04.2022 had directed the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously and the Record Keeper of the concerned court was directed to provide certified copy to the applicant expeditiously and on production of the same, the trial Court was directed to conduct the matter on day-to-day basis and conclude within period of four weeks with a specific direction that no adjournments was to be granted in the matter. Since the matter was not concluded in accordance with the directions given by the Court, the petitioner has filed an application for regular bail. The certified copy of Rojkam is produced before this Court.

4. Looking to the rojkam, the order dated 29.04.2022 was brought to the notice of concerned trial Court on 16.05.2022, which was put on record at Exh.28. On next adjournment i.e. on 17.05.2022, the accused has filed a pursis at Exh.29/1 by stating that they do not want to cross-examine the witness and on the same day, the accused has moved an application vide Exh.30 to proceed the matter for further statement, which was listed for hearing. Thereafter, on 31.05.2022, the learned Judge of the concerned court was on leave. On 06.06.2022, the complainant has filed an application vide Exh.31 with regard to produce the documentary list and concerned Court heard both the parties on Exh.30 and Exh.31 and the matter was kept for orders. Thereafter on 07.06.2022, the required documents as per Exh.31 having not verified the trial was adjourned for order below Exh.30 and 31 and for verification of the documents. Thereafter, the trial stood adjourned on 08.06.2022; 09.6.2022; 10.06.2022 and 13.06.2022. On 14.06.2022, a new documentary list was prepared and produced at Exh.33 and even on behalf of accused, a documentary list at Exh.34 was produced on record. The trial stood adjourned for about 13 times for order below Exh.30 and Exh.31. Exh.35 and 36 are the application filed by the accused with a prayer to exhibit the documents produced vide Exh.35 and 36, which are mark 22/1 and 25/1 onwards and mark 34/1 to 34/124. On 05.07.2022, the trial Court passed an order below Exh.35 and 36 and the documents were ordered to be put in evidence and the trial was adjourned for orders below Exh.30 and 31. On 14.07.2022, application vide Exh.350 and 351 were moved by the APP for the examination of the witnesses, and application, Exh.352 was given on the same day by the accused for production of the documentary-list. The matter stood adjourned for about 05 times and on 02.08.2022, the applications vide Exh.350 and 351 were rejected and then the matter was posted for further statement. On 05.08.2022, learned APP had given applications vide Exh.354 and 355 for stay of the order below applications Exh.350 and 351. That application vide Exh.354 and 355 were heard and were rejected by the learned court below. Thereafter on next adjournment i.e. on 10.08.2022 the matter stood adjourned for argument. It was noticed that inspite of 05 adjournments, the matter was notified and kept for further argument and thereafter, after 02 adjournments, on 05.09.2022 and 06.09.2022, application was moved by accused praying the Court to hear the argument even in his absence. After the prayer was made by the accused to hear the argument in his absence, as could not be produced to the jail authority, since September, 2022 there were about 12 adjournments only for the argument from the side of the APP. It was, therefore, praye