Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) CONTENTION of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time when first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 28/8/2012, liberty was given to him to apply again before the Court below if the trial is not concluded within six months. The trial has not been concluded and is not likely to be concluded in near future. Petitioner was arrested on 14/8/2011 and thus, he has been in jail for almost two years. Two witnesses are said to have identified him but in the Court statements Lal Chand (PW 1), author of the FIR and Mubin (PW 2), have stated in cross -examination that petitioner was shown to them by the police in police station. Apart from this, three more cases for offence u/Ss. 41 Cr.P.C., 395 and 379 IPC were lodged against him, in last of which, he has been acquitted. Trial is likely to take long. He undertakes not to repeat the similar offence in future. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application but he is not in a position to rebut the aforesaid submission.
(2.) WITHOUT expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but having regard to the facts aforestated and considering all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. In the result, this second bail application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner -Taufik Ahmed S/o Shri Shaheed Khan shall be released on bail in Sessions Case No. 168/2011 (State vs. Taufik Ahmed and others) arising out of FIR No. 211/2011 registered at Police Station Bhiwadi Phase -III, District Alwar for offence u/Ss. 379, 365 and 395 IPC on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ - together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/ - each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all dates of hearing until conclusion of the trial on the following condition: - that in case it is found that any other criminal case, apart from cases stated hereinabove, is pending against petitioner and that misstatement has been made about his whereabouts or non -registration of any other criminal case or petitioner is found indulged in committing similar offence in future, the bail so granted to him by this Court in this case and in other cases, would be liable to be cancelled at the instance of the prosecution even by the trial Court and he would be liable to be re -arrested for facing trial.;