24 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. 3rd BAIL APPLN. NO. 3823/2010. Bhim Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 7th June 2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, VJ. Mr. Devanand Gehlot, for the petitioner. Mr. A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT: The petitioner, accused of offences under Sections 458, 394, 307/34 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, has moved this third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The second application for bail (No. 1291/2010) as moved on behalf of the petitioner was considered and rejected on 25.02.2010 with the following order,- “Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, in the totality of the circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to grant indulgence to the petitioner in this second bail application. However, in the circumstances, it is considered appropriate and hence observed that if the petitioner makes a request before the learned Trial Court for expeditious proceedings curbing against unnecessary delay, the same be given due consideration by the learned Trial Court. With the observations aforesaid, this second bail application moved on behalf of the petitioner Bheem Singh s/o Shambhoo Singh under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands rejected at this stage.” It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite expectation from the Trial Court that the matter may be proceeded with expedition, the order-sheets show that the prosecution has failed to produce the relevant witnesses and such witnesses are not being served despite orders of the - 2 - Court and in the result, the trial is getting protracted; and the only intention on the part of the complainant party is to somehow prolong the detention of the petitioner. With such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed strenuously for grant of bail to the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation though this Court is not inclined to grant indulgence to the petitioner at this stage but then, after going through the order-sheets as placed on record, it does appear appropriate to observe that the learned Trial Court ought to have considered the spirit of the order dated 25.02.2010 and ought to have attempted to proceed expeditiously particularly curbing against unnecessary delay. Mere asking of explanation from the SHO concerned does not sound sufficient. Though this third application for bail is rejected at this stage but it shall be expected now of the learned Trial Court to proceed expeditiously with the matter while taking all requisite steps and while assigning priority to this case. With the observations aforesaid, this third application for bail moved on behalf of the petitioner Bhim Singh son of Shambhoo Singh under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands rejected at this stage. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), VJ. //Mohan//