ALLABAKSH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is arrayed as accused No. 6 in S.C. No. 49/2008 on the file of the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge sitting at Hubli for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 121, 121(A), 122, 124(A), 153(A), 153(B), 379, 116, 465, 468, 471, 201, 511 of I.P.C. and Section 3, 10 and 13 of Prevention of Unlawful Activities Act, 1967 and Section 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 has filed this petition seeking enlarging him on bail. Even at the earlier stages this petitioner approached this Court for grant of bail in Crl. P. No. 7204/2008. This Court by means of a very detailed order has dismissed the said petition on merits considering all the pros and cons of the circumstances after finding a strong prima facie case against the petitioner. Subsequently, some other accused persons have also approached this Court for grant of bail in connection with the above said case. In Crl. P. Nos. 10958/2011 and 10959/2011 one Yahya Iyash Kamakutti and another by name Syed Sadiq have approached this Court. While dismissing the said bail petitions vide orders dated 12th December 2011 this Court has directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial by means of taking the matter on day -to -day basis. Again, this petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail in Crl. P. No. 10744/2012 and the said petition once again came to be dismissed vide orders dated 08.08.2012. In the said order, this Court had not touched upon the merits of the case because of the simple reason, earlier bail petition of the petitioner was dismissed on merits. However, this Court has directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial and dispose it of as early as possible. Being aggrieved by the orders of this Court the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal in No. 9173/2012. Vide orders the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30.11.2012 observed that:

(2.) BY virtue of the above said -order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner again approached the Trial Court for grant of bail on the ground that within the span of one year time as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Trial Court has not disposed of the matter. The learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 07.01.2014 dismissed the application writing a detailed order referring as to why the trial could not be concluded within a year's time. The order of the learned Sessions Judge wherein he has categorically in detail stated as to why expeditiously the case could not be disposed of. However, it is stated that unnecessary adjournments have not been granted and the trial Court has made all its endeavours to dispose of the matter within a time span specified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this background, the petitioner approached this Court for grant of bail.

(3.) LOOKING to the Trial Court records, I have carefully examined the trial Court records as per the directions being issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is seen that the Trial Court has fixed the trial on weekly basis from 14.12.2012. It appears upto 12.08.2013 the trial was adjourned on the ground that the video camera was not working. It is also an admitted fact, that some of the accused persons are in Ahmedabad jail and they have to be produced before the trial Court by means of video conference system and on such basis the Trial Court has to conduct the trial. Nearly for a period of nine months the trial was not conducted by the Trial Court on the ground that video camera was not working. The order sheet also disclose that the Trial Court has made certain efforts in order to get the said video camera repaired. The trial virtually begin only in the month of August 2013. Even otherwise, the Trial Court examined 3 or 4 witnesses per day considering their lengthy statements. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor brings it to my notice since August 2013 upto this day 35 witnesses have been examined. But in my opinion, the nature in which the trial is conducted by the Trial Court is not as expected, I am not happy with the same because of the simple reason when such a serious matter is before the Court and it went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there is a direction by this Court and as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court to take up the matter on day -to -day basis only on the ground of video camera was not working whether the trial could be deferred for such a long time. It is observed by the trial Court that because the video camera was not working the trial was delayed for a period of more than nine months. It was the duty of the learned Sessions Judge to see that the video camera is repaired within two or three days or the said video system itself could have been replaced for the purpose of conducting the said trial. Such steps appears to have not been taken by the Trial Court. Though some efforts made but not expected. The learned Sessions Judge should have brought to the notice of Registrar General about his difficulties and sought for solutions. As could be seen from the records, subsequently after getting the video camera repaired the witnesses have been regularly summoned and on regular basis the witnesses have been examined by the Court. I am told by learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that the video conferencing system being operating by the Jail authorities they should have promptly assisted the Court. It is to be borne in mind all the other wings like Police, Jail authorities who have to assist the Court must have seriousness about the case and assist the Court for speedy disposal.