1 1 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. THIRD BAIL APPLN. NO. 1262/2010. Satbir Vs. The State of Rajasthan .. Date of Order :: 18th March 2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. M.K. Garg, for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Singaria, Public Prosecutor. ... BY THE COURT: The petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Sections 302/34 , 232, 341 IPC in Sessions Case No. 30/2007, said to be pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu. The first bail application (No. 2935/2008) was dismissed on 05.08.2008 while giving liberty to the petitioner to apply for bail afresh after recording the statements of the witness Dharampal. The said witness Dharampal was examined as PW-1 on 28.08.2007 and thereafter the petitioner moved the second bail application. However, after considering the material available on record, this Court declined the second bail plea and rejected the bail application (No. 2448/2009) on 06.07.2009. In relation to the progress of the case, it was, of course, observed that the petitioner was definitely free to take appropriate steps before the Sessions Judge concerned. 2 The petitioner has now moved this third bail application and it has strenuously been argued that since after rejection of the second bail application on 06.07.2009, only one witness Shravan Kumar has been examined on 25.11.2009 and else, the matter has unnecessarily been adjourned with the witnesses avoiding to appear and the prosecution not taking adequate and timely steps to summon the witnesses at an early date; and the learned Trial Court has also not taken appropriate steps to procure the presence of the witnesses. Perusal of the order-sheets as placed on record shows that another witness Amar Singh presented himself before the Court twice over but his statement, for one reason or another, was not recorded. It does appear that some of the witnesses have not appeared despite service of the process. It is also noticed that the matter had been adjourned several times for one reason or another with the result that no substantial progress has been made in the trial. It is noticed that the matter is fixed in the Trial Court on 16.04.2010 and 17.04.2010. Even while this Court is not inclined to grant indulgence to the petitioner in this third bail application, it is, of course, expected of the learned Trial Court to proceed expeditiously with the matter and take adequate steps to procure the 3 presence of the witnesses and unnecessary delay in the trial cannot be appreciated. While this third bail application is rejected at this stage without any comments on the merits of the case, it is considered appropriate and hence observed that it shall be expected of the learned Trial Court to take adequate steps for substantial progress of the matter on the given dates and if there be any material change of circumstances and an application for bail is moved by the petitioner, the same be considered in accordance with law. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//