Delay in trial alone is not a sufficient ground for granting bail. The court must also consider the gravity of the crime, the involvement of the accused, and the likelihood of further criminal occurrences if the accused is released on bail.

( 1 ) THIS is the first bail application.

( 2 ) THE prosecution story is that the applicants, Rejveer Singh and two unknown persons armed with fire-arms had fired at Jogendra Singh and Dharmendra Singh causing the death of Jogendra Singh at the spot. Dharmendra Singh was taken to S. N. Hospital, Agra, where he was found dead. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the field of village Nagla Prem of Police station Etmadpur, district Agra at 5. 30 p. m. on 31-7-1989 while Rajveer Singh and his son were returning from Chauli to their house in the aforesaid village. It has been alleged that the occurrence had been seen by Laxmi Raj, Ashok, Har Prasad, Rampal Singh and many others. The maker of the report Harish is said to have fired from his licensed gun towards the assailants and thereupon the applicants and his companions are said to have run away towards west.

( 3 ) A supplementary affidavit has been filed stating that two witnesses Mangal Singh and Har Prasad have filed affidavits in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Agra completely disowning the prosecution story. It has also been urged that applicant Rajveer Singh has been granted bail by this Court. Therefore, on parity ground, the applicants should also be released because the role assigned to all of them is identical to Rajveer Singh.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicants has drawn my attention to the effect that uptil now the trial has yet not begun and the applicants should be released on bail.

( 5 ) THIS application has been opposed by the complainant and the State on the ground that the offence committed by the applicants Rajveer Singh and two unknown persons was quite serious. Learned counsel urged that in this matter the delay in commencement of trial was not on account of laxity of the prosecution. The case diary has been summoned in this case on 7-12-1989. The bail application of Rajveer Singh was rejected on 25-5-1990. The case diary was returned in july, 1990. The complainant had moved an application before the Sessions Judge, Agra complaining that the Judicial Magistrate concerned was deliberately delaying the committal proceedings. Rejveer Singh, who has been granted bail by me on 20-12-1990 has started misusing his bail by not presenting himself on the date fixed. In this way, the accused themselves are responsible for the delay. It was argued that it is not a universal rule that where-ever there is a delay in trial the accused should be released on bail. My attention has been drawn to several case laws by learned counsel for the complainant in support of his contention that the delay in commencement of trial cannot be a good ground for bail.

( 6 ) THE first case cited is of Virendra Singh v. Awadhesh Kumar. In this case Hon ble R. B. Lal, J. of this Court hearing on a matter relating to cancellation of bail had observed: In my opinion, the observation of the Supreme Court in Kadra Pehadiyas case (supra) that the reasonable period of time cannot and should not exceed one year for a sessions trialt should not be taken as laying down an absolute and invariable rule for conclusion of sessions trials without having regard to the nature of offence and other circumstances of each particular case. This observation provides a guideline about the period of time during which a sessions trial should ordinarily conclude. However, this does not mean that special circumstances of a case which prolonged the period of trial, are to be ignored while considering the question of inordinate delay. The question of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial of a case should be decided in the light of its own facts and circumstances.

( 7 ) IN this case, the bail had been cancelled on the ground that the Second Additional Sessions Judge had granted bail even though bail had been refused by the High Court. It was stressed that judicial propriety and decorum require that the Sessions Court should be circumspect while dealing with subsequent bail applications when