K.S.LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is third application for bail. The first bail application was rejected by this court as not pressed on 19 -3 -1986. That application was on behalf of three petitioners, Natharam, Bhanwararam and Jawanaram. Then the second application was moved on behalf of Natha Ram alone. This application was disposed of by this Court on 2 -5 -1988. At the time of hearing that application, learned Public Prosecutor had stated that the case was fixed on 6 -5 -1988 and he will try to see that all the remaining witnesses are examined on that day and if by chance they are not examined on that day, then within ten days thereafter they shall be examined. In view of this statement of the learned Public Proseuctor, learned Counsel for the petitioner did not press the application for bail at that stage and it was observed by this court that it is expected that the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Nagaur shall try to complete the trial of the case, say within a fortnight after the closure of the prosecution evidence and in case the matter is not decided early, then, the petitioner shall be free to move another application for bail.
(2.) NOW , this third application for bail has been filed on behalf of petitioners Natharam, Bhanwara Ram and Jawana Ram, It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that despite the undertaking by the learned Public Prosecutor and direction of this court, the prosecution evidence has not yet been completed. Therefore, he has filed this application for bail on behalf of three petitioners. He further states that he does not press the application on behalf of petitioners Bhanwararam and Jawanaram and only presses it on behalf of Natharam. It is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned Counsel for the complainant that the prosecution evidence has not been completed and five more witnesses remain to be examined. The next date fixed in the trial court is 18 -7 -1988. In the order sheet dated 7 -5 -1988, the learned trial Judge mentioned the receipt of the copy of the order of this court dated 2 -5 -1988, but strangely enough instead of complying with the direction of this court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that as other Sessions cases have already been fixed, this could not be fixed for evidence before 24 -5 -1988 and he, therefore, fixed the case for evidence of prosecution on 24th and 25th May, 1988 On May 24, 1988 two witnesses were examined and the case came up on 25th and on that day, again two witnesses were examined and then the case was adjourned to 18 -7 -1988 for examining the remaining witnesses, who have been summoned by warrants etc. The trial of the case is pending since 1985. The prosecution does not appear to be taking sufficient care to produce the witnesses so much so that despite clear undertaking of the learned Public Prosecutor on 2 -5 -1988 that all the witnesses will be got examined on 6 -5 -1988 or within 10 days thereafter, only six witnesses have been examined in a piece -meal manner from 6 -5 -1988 to 25 -5 -1988 and still five witnesses remain to be examined. This clearly shows that the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned Counsel for the complainant have not complied with the undertaking given by them and the court also has failed to bestow proper attention to the direction given by this court. When such clear direction has been given by this court, the case should have been fixed in accordance with that direction irrespective of the fact that other cases had already been fixed for evidence during that period. Cases are always fixed for hearing before the courts but when such a direction is given by this court, it is the duty of the trial court to comply with it by adjusting the diary accordingly and if necessary by adjourning some of the cases already fixed by it. Looking to all the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that when the undertaking given by the learned Public Prosecutor has not been complied with and the direction of this court has also not been followed and the fact that the case has already been pending for more than three years before the trial court, the petitioner Natha Ram should be released on bail.
(3.) THE bail application of Bhanwararam and Jawana Ram is rejected as not pressed. The application of Natha Ram is allowed and it is directed that Natha Ram shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ - (ten thousand only) with two sureties of Rs. 5000/ -each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur for his appearance before that court on the next date of hearing and on all subsequent dates of hearing when ever called upon to do so.;