Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, accused of offences under Sections 307 and 452 IPC, has moved this third application for bail with reference to the order passed by the learned Trial Court on 02.07.2010.
(2.) IT is noticed that the second bail application moved by the petitioner was dismissed as not pressed on 22.07.2010. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has attempted to argue on this third bail application with reference to the statements of the witnesses examined until 01.07.2010 but then, it does not appear that there has been material change of circumstances since after rejection of the second bail application so as to consider this third bail application. However, in the totality of the facts and circumstances, it does appear appropriate to observe that the trial of this case which has already registered substantial progress ought to be brought to finality at the earliest by the learned Trial Court while assigning a reasonable priority to this matter. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has been now fixed in the month of November 2010 and to his instructions, the Presiding Officer is not available in the Trial Court. In this regard, it is does appear appropriate to observe that the learned Sessions Judge concerned should take adequate and appropriate steps so that the trial of this case is not unnecessarily protracted and should make arrangements so that the trial is brought to an end as early as possible.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the petitioner Tejveer Singh son of Ramcharan Singh stands dismissed with the observations and requirements aforesaid.;