An accused is entitled to bail on the ground of delay in trial if the trial court fails to comply with a direction to conclude the trial within a specified time.

1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant.

2. This is IVth bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C., but it has been filed in the changed circumstances and it needs consideration.

3. The accused-petitioner, along with other co-accused persons is facing trial in Sessions Case No. 2/93 pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No. 3, Kota and the offence is under section 302 I.P.C. along with other offences. He was arrested on 9th August 1992 and since then he is in jail and as such, he is in custody for the last about two years.

4. The co-accused, Shiv Raj Singh had moved bail application No. 5910/93 and the same was disposed of on 5.1.94. While rejecting the bail application the following order was passed:

"Therefore, at this stage, the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated. Since the trial has commenced, I expect that the trial Judge shall make every effort to conclude the trial on an early date. The petitioner is in jail for the last 18 months and, as such, I think it proper to give a direction to the trial court that every effort should be made to conclude the trial within six months from today, and if necessary, evidence may be recorded day today."

5. Third bail application No. 89/94, filed by the petitioner was listed and decided by this Court on 25.2.94 and the following order was passed :

"The petitioner has moved this third application for grant of bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. The bail application of the co-accused Shiv Raj Singh was decided by this Court on 5.1.94. While rejecting his bail application, a direction was given by this Court to conclude the trial within six months from the dale of order. The six months time was going to expire on July 4,1994.

Mr. Rajawat, appearing for the complainant submits that all the main witnesses have been examined and only formal witnesses have to be examined and that, so far the prosecution is concerned, the prosecution witnesses will be examined, much before the time given by the Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, wants to withdraw this bail application, but he wants a firm order from the Court that the trial Court should conclude the trial by July 4, 1994. The bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court."

6. The above orders make it clear that the learned counsel for the complainant, on the one hand, had given assurance to this Court that all the prosecution witnesses will be examined much before the time given by the Court vide order dated 5.1.194 in the bail application of Shivraj Singh. In view of the order passed by this Court in Shivraj Singh's bail application and the assurance given by the learned counsel for the complainant the counsel for the petitioner withdrew the bail application, but he wanted a firm order from this Court that the trial Court should conclude the trial by 4th of July, 1994 as per directions in Shivraj Singh's case. This request was found to be reasonable and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial by July 4, 1994. In view of this, the third bail application was withdrawn by the learned counsel.

7. The order-sheets of the trial court after 5.2.94 have been produced before me. A look of the order-sheets shows that neither the prosecuting agency nor the trial Judge took the order in its letter and spirit and no effort was made by him to conclude the trial within the specified time. As per the assurance the witnesses were not produced by the prosecuting agency and as per the direction, the learned trial Judge also did not take the case as was expected from him. When a clear direction was given to the trial court in Shivraj Singh's case to take the case day today if necessary, there was hardly any reason that the trial would not have been concluded, provided, the investigating agency had also co-operated in producing t