MUKESH Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMN )

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for grant of bail mainly on the ground that the petitioner has been in custody since 16th August, 1987 but only eight out of seventeen witnesses have been examined so far.

(2.) MR . Grover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, drew my attention to an order passed by this Court on the second bail petition being Cr.M. (M) No.464/92 on 14th May, 1992. By this order a learned Single Judge of this Court transferred the case to the court of Shri Kuldip Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, with a direction to give short adjournments and dispose of the case preferably within four months. Learned counsel submitted that even about a year has lapsed from the date of the said order, but only one witness could be examined partly during this period. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that since the trial has protracted for about six years, the petitioner should be released on bail. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment reported in Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, AIR 1979 SC 1360 and two judgment of this Court reported in Jagdish Kumar v. State (Delhi Administration), 1990 Crl.L.J. 730 and in the case of Joginder Singh v. State, Cr.M(M) No. 2108/89 dated 20th December, 1989.

(3.) MR . Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, submitted that delay in the disposal of the case is not because of any lapse on the part of the prosecution and as such the petitioner is not entitled to bail.