The court emphasized the importance of concluding trials within a reasonable period and the obligation of official witnesses to appear before the court, highlighting the potential consequences for failing to do so.

ORDER : – This is the applicant’s repeat (seventh) bail application under section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He is implicated in connection with Crime No. 230/2014 registered at Police Station Birlagram, District Ujjain (MP) for offence punishable under sections 302 and 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. His earlier bail applications have already been dismissed by this Court on merits. The applicant is in jail since 25-10-2018.

2. The allegation against the applicant is that he committed murder of Satish s/o Ramkirshna.

3. Counsel for the applicant has submitted in fifth bail application of the applicant being Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 46754/2019, this Court vide order dated 20-11-2019 while dismissing the repeat bail application as withdrawn, directed the learned Judge of the trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible. Counsel has further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 29-8-2014 and till date, the trial has not concluded, despite the specific order passed by this Court. Thus, taking into account the period of incarceration, which is around seven years’ incarceration, the application be allowed.

4. Counsel has also cited various judgments of this Court in the case of Phool Singh vs. State of M. P. in Misc. Cri. Case No. 36488/2020, order dated 1-10-2020 (Gwalior Bench); Rambahor Saket and others vs. State of M. P. in Misc. Cri. Cases No. 32718, 25031 and 17896 of 2018, order dated 4-12-2018 (Main Seat at Jabalpur); Monu @ Katle @ Ifran vs. State of M. P. in Misc. Cri. Case No. 5459/2021 vide order dated 2-2-2021 (Gwalior Bench) and in the case of Surendra Patel vs. State of M. P. in Misc. Cri. Case No. 3556/2019 and Misc. Cri. Case No. 37749/2018 on 20-10-2020 (Main Seat at Jabalpur) as well as the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon and others vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, reported as (1980) 1 SCC 81, Vivek Kumar vs. State of U. P., reported as (2000) 9 SCC 443 to substantiate his point, that the applicant cannot be allowed to languish in jail, when the prosecution is not able to lead its entire evidence within a reasonable period of time.

5. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for grant of bail is made out, as his earlier bail applications have already been dismissed on merits.

6. This Court has also called for the report regarding the status of the case from the trial Court; and as per the status report, nine witnesses have already been examined and only two prosecution witnesses are remained to be still examined and they are Dr. Shiv Kumar Saimil (the doctor who performed the postmortem) and the Investigating Officer of the case Sub Inspector Narendra Yadav. It is also mentioned in the status report that the presence of these two witnesses could not be procured despite issuance of warrants against them.

7. On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the gravity of the offence, although this Court does not find it to be a fit case to grant bail to the applicant at this juncture, however, looking to the fact that the applicant is in jail since 29-8-2014, learned Judge of the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial preferably within a further period of six months and if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the applicant can renew his prayer for grant of bail. So far as the judgments cited by the counsel for the applicant are concerned, the same are not relevant at this stage.

8. Taking note of the conduct of the official prosecution witnesses, this court finds it rather surprising that the prosecution has not been able to procure the presence of two official witnesses, who are on government payroll, even after issuing arrest warrants against them. In such circumstances, it is directed to the Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, State of Madhya Pradesh, B