thereafter marry her, the fact that he was a married man had come to light in June 2021 and this is a fact, which stares the Court in the face. Prima facie , the FIR appears to have been registered after a delay of about one year. It is an admitted position that the applicant has remained behind bars from 05.06.2022 i.e. for a period of more than two years. The charge, in the present case, was framed as far back as on 03.12.2022 and yet there is no progress in the trial. This Court is not inclined to call for a report from the trial Court as to the progress of the trial, since the learned counsel for the informant has tendered photocopies of orders / proceedings of the trial Court from 28.05.2022 onwards. It appears that the proceedings before the trial Court have been adjourned on the ground that the accused was not produced from judicial custody. But, it is significant that in the proceeding dated 23.07.2024, the witness was to be produced i.e. the informant. It is also recorded in the said proceeding that the witness is absent, further recording that due to paucity of time, the matter has been adjourned. The aforesaid material does indicate that there is no progress in the trial. The apprehension expressed on behalf of the informant that releasing the applicant on bail may adversely affect the prosecution case, as the witnesses and evidence can be tampered can be dealt with by imposing appropriate conditions. The contention raised on behalf of the applicant on the basis that the wife of the applicant had made it clear before the Sessions Court that she would not be cooperating for grant of divorce, is a contention stated only to be rejected.
