- (1.) THE petitioner Maga Ram, who is said to be in custody since 08.10.2008, and is facing trial for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 302/120B IPC, has moved this fourth application for bail.
(2.) THE first application as moved by the petitioner bearing No.982/2009 was dismissed as not pressed on 08.05.2009. The second bail application bearing No.5815/2010 moved on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.11.2010 with liberty to move afresh before the learned Trial Court. The third bail application bearing No.387/2012 was considered on 22.02.2012. By that time, the trial had registered substantial progress and it was given out that 15 witnesses had already been examined and only one relevant witness Pappu Devi was to be examined. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the third bail application, with reference to the fact that the trial was at its fag end, sought permission to withdraw but made a request for observations for expeditious proceedings in the trial. This Court found the submissions justified and even while dismissing the bail application as withdrawn, made the observations as under: - "In the totality of the circumstances, the submissions appear reasonable. When substantial number of witnesses have already been examined and the petitioners are in custody for over three years, it is definitely expected of the learned Trial Court to assign a specific priority to the matter and to proceed expeditiously curbing against unnecessary delay. At the same time, it is also expected of the prosecution to take all steps for production of the remaining witnesses without delay and to assist in conclusion of the trial at the earliest." The learned counsel for the petitioner in the present fourth bail application submits that having regard to the circumstances, the petitioner shall stand advised not to press on this bail application but submits that though the said witness Pappu Devi was examined on 12.06.2012 but now, the further progress in the trial is stuck as the witnesses Nos. 11 and 21 (witness No.21 being the investigating officer) named in the charge-sheet remain to be examined and unnecessarily, the matter is lingering on.
(3.) A perusal of the order-sheets as placed before the Court make out that on 12.06.2012, the learned Trial Court consciously took note of the position of the record and directed the remaining witnesses to be summoned by bailable warrant through Superintendent of Police, Nagaur and also observed: "...... ...." It appears that the prosecution yet failed to produce the witnesses and on 19.06.2012, the learned Trial Court again passed the order that if the witnesses would not appear on the next date, the Court would be recording the statement of accused and observed: "... ...." ;