NAND LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nand Lal has moved this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in F.I.R. No. 118 of 1989, police Station Shakar Pur, Delhi. The petitioner, along with his brother Bankey Lal, is facing trial for the offence punishable under section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code for the murder of Smt. Sita, wife of the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Nand Lal has been in custody for about five years and the prosecution could not get the prosecution evidence concluded as yet in spite of the directions by this Court vide order dated 2.7.1993 in Gr.M.(M) 1374 of 1993. It has, thus, been submitted that the petitioner is'being deprived of his personal liberty and the trial will take a long period to conclude. A prayer has, thus, been made for release of the petitioner on bail. The application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State. A perusal of the order dated 2.7.1993 shows that a direction was. given to the trial court to finish the case expeditiously within a period of six months. Report received from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dealing with the case, indicates that on account of the non- posting of an Additional Public Prosecutor in the court, the direction could not be complied with and case could not be concluded. It has, however, been stated in the report by the learned trial court that three witnesses were examined after the aforesaid order and that now, the case is fixed for 1st and 2nd of March, 1994 and that every endeavor would be made to conclude the trial within about a month's time. There is no doubt that a direction was given by this Court for concluding the trial and liberty was given to the petitioner to move an application for bail if the trial was not concluded. In these circumstances, it can not be said that the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail automatically on account of the trial being not concluded within- a period of six months. The court has to take into consideration all the material facts. Since the trial court has now intimated that the trial would be concluded within , a period of one month, I do not consider it proper, at this stage, to release the petitioner on bail on account of non-compliance of the order dated 2.7.1993.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even on merits, it is a fit case for the release of the petitioner on bail. He has submitted that Smt. Sita, deceased, was having 100% burns at the time, she was removed to the hospital and, thus, it was highly improbable 'that : she could have made a statement with regard to the petitioner (her husband), and her Devar having set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her body. He has also submitted that in her statement recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day, Smt. Sita did not assign any role to Bankey Lal, which clearly goes to indicate that she was not a reliable witness and in any case, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. A perusal of the copy of the MLC produced by the petitioner indicates that Smt. Sita was found to be conscious, responding to oral commands and the history was given by the patient herself to the effect that after pouring kerosene oil over her body by her husband and Devar, they set her on fire. She was taken to the hospital on 21.4.1989 at 11.15 a.m. and she was declared to be unfit for statement at 5.15 p.m.while there was an endorsement of even date with regard to the patient being fit for statement without the time of recording the same. I am afraid, no opinion can be given with regard to the merits of the case lest the case of either party's gets prejudiced. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I am clearly of the view that a direction should be given to the trial court to expedite the disposal of the case but the bail ought not to be given, at this stage.