THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.7536 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is A1 in Crime No.121 of 2006 of II Town Police Station, Khammam, registered for the offences under Sections 302, 379, 364, 376 (2)(g), 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent/State. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the evidence brought on record does not speak of the involvement of the participation of the petitioner in the commission of offence and therefore the petitioner deserves to be admitted to bail. A further submission has been made that the prosecution has filed petition to recall P.W.1 and it is pending consideration and there is every likelihood of trial being delayed, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be admitted to bail. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that if the petitioner is admitted to bail, there is every possibility of the petitioner threatening the witnesses from giving evidence in favour of the prosecution. The trial of the case is nearing completion and no special circumstances have been made out by the petitioner to admit him to bail at this stage and therefore the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. It is well settled that mere delay in the trial is not a ground to admit the accused to bail. It has been held in KALYAN CHANDRA SARKAR VS. RAJESH RANJAN @ PAPPU YADAV AND ANR.[1] as follows: “In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail. ” Indisputably, the Sessions Case is coming up for arguments. The entire evidence has been placed on record. Such is situation, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to admit the petitioner to bail. Since the case is already coming up for arguments, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of the S.C. No.341 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. 22nd September, 2009. skmr [1] AIR 2004 SC 1866