THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No : 3913 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioners herein are A1, A4 to A16 in S.C.No.63 of 2009 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners laid much emphasis on two aspects, which, according to him, favour the petitioners to secure bail in S.C.No.63 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. Firstly, delay in trial of the case and secondly, the petitioners 1 to 4 are brothers and they are agriculturists and their presence in the village to supervise agricultural operations is essential since agricultural season has commenced. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that the village Kaptralla is a faction village and deep seated enmity exists between two groups and if the petitioners are admitted to bail, there is every possibility of their involving similar offences and also likelihood of threatening the witnesses. 5. This is the third bail application. The earlier two applications filed by them ended in dismissal on 13-02-2009 and 06-05-2009 respectively vide Criminal Petition Nos.670 of 2009 and 2948 of 2009. 6. The facts of the case have been detailed in order dated 06-05-2009 passed in Criminal Petition No.2948 of 2009. Therefore they are not required to be reiterated in this petition. 7. A report has been called from the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni to know the reason for delay in trial of the case. The report dated 24-07-2009 of the Additional Sessions Judge reveals that the case is being adjourned from time to time due to the absence of one or the other accused. 8. It is well settled that mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration 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 near future either by itself or coupled with incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the accused on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering of witnesses by the accused vide the decision of Supreme Court in KALYAN CHANDRA SEKHAR v. RAJESH RANJAN [1]. 9. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, merely delay in trial does not enure to the benefit of the petitioner to seek bail. However there is already a direction given to the trial Court to complete the trial within three months vide order dated 06-05-2009 passed in Criminal Petition No.2948 of 2009. In view of the report of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, time allowed for conclusion of trial of the case extends by three months. Accordingly the Criminal Petition is dismissed 10. Registry is directed to communicate the order copy to the trial Court. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 10th August, 2009 Tsy [1] 2004 AIR SCW 1581