1. This order shall also govern the disposal of MCrC No. 1770/06 (Ranchhod and another v. State of M.P.) as both these applications arise out of the same criminal case.

2. This is the second application filed under section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. I 14/05 registered under section 420,406,465 and 120-B of IPC at Police Station Sardarpur, Dhar against the present applicant and others, on the allegation that the present applicant and other accused persons committed fraud upon the villagers, cheated them and withdrew a huge amount fraudulently from their accounts through the cheques, which were given to them by the Government as compensation of the land acquired by the Government for public purpose.

Earlier application was dismissed as not pressed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant raised two contentions in this application and prayed that applicant be released on bail because he has entered into a compromise with the complainants of the case and the compromise petition has been filed before the trial Court and after that compromise petition, seven complainants were examined by the trial Court and they have turned hostile. Of course the trial Court has rejected the compromise application because offence is not compoundable in terms of S. 320 of the CrPC.

Secondly, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the matter of Ashok Dhingra v. N. C. T of Delhi [AIR 2000 SC 3537 (1)] and Mehmood Mohammed Sayeed v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2002 SC 482], as the trial has not been completed even after six months from the date of the arrest of present applicant and looking to the huge amount involved in it and a long list of witnesses, trial Court definitely would take a long time, therefore, to keep the present applicant in custody during trial would be against the interest of justice. Therefore, learned counsel prayed that applicant be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that as the application of other co-accused persons have been dismissed on merits by others Benches of this Court, therefore, he is not pressing in service any ground touching the merits of the case.

4. Per contra, learned public prosecutor submitted that the ground of delay caused in trial, has also been taken into consideration by another Benches of this Court, while dismissing the bail application of other co-accused persons. Learned public prosecutor submits that the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by learned counsel for the applicant though were not placed before that bench but arguments were advanced, on that basis also and the ground of delay in trial, was considered by other bench while deciding bail application of other co-accused persons and has been found not to be a proper ground for releasing other co-accused on bail, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.

Learned counsel submits that as per the statements given by witnesses before the trial Court, about 1/3 amount of compensation was fraudulently withdrew from bank and retained by the present applicant and other co-accused persons and out of the amount of compensation of Rs.15 lacs, one complainant was paid Rs. 11 lacs and remaining amount of Rs. 4 lacs were distributed between the present applicant, Bank Officers, Patwari and other co-accused persons. Similarly out of the amount of compensation paid by the Government to other complainants lacs of rupees were deducted by the present applicant by cheating and forgery and a wrongful loss has been caused to poor farmers to the tune of Rs. 50 lacs. Statements have been given by the witnesses before the trial Court to prove these facts, and therefore, as the application of other co-accused persons have been dismissed by other benches of this High Court, therefore, judicial discipline requires that the present applicant be also not released on bail merely on the groun