NARINDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mukesh Kalia has brought to my notice that till date no further evidence has been recorded in this case even after the passing of the order by falveer Bhandari, J. on 30th March, 1992. In a similar case of co- accused Hari Om, this Court granted the bail primarily on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to examine any witness after recording of the five witnesses. There are 25 more witnesses which are yet to be examined. The case is pending since 30th March, 1988. Mr. Bahri contended that non providing of the Public Prosecutor is no fault of the Prosecution and therefore, we should not take into account this ground. I am surprised with this contention of the prosecution because providing of the Public Prosecutor is the job of the State and if the State is not interested then petitioner cannot be made to suffer at the hands of the prosecution.

(2.) In view of the delay in proceeding with the case by prosecution, I admit the petitioner on bail on his furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Copy of this order be given to Mr. Bahri. Application allowed.