D S BHATNAGAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by D. S. Bhatnagar, an under-trial 'B' class prisoner confined in the Central Jail, New Delhi, for his release on bail pending his trial under section 307 Indian Penal Code, and Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act. The alleged offences are stated to have been committed on 23-8-1966. The petitioner claims to belong to a respectable family is a B.Sc. from the United States and a Law Graduate from the Government Law College, Bombay, having passed the Bar Council Examination and also being on the rolls of the Bombay High Court. At the present moment, he claims to be an officer in the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. He has averred in his application that the police have had four months time for investigation and the challan has actually been filed in Court. But there has been practically no progress in the case since then. From the record, I find that the evidence of P. W. 1 Uma Shankar and P. W 2 Daya Nath was recorded on 3-11-1966 by the learned Magistrate Shri M. M. Oberoi.

(2.) Reverting to the record of proceedings presumably in the handwriting of the Reader on 3-11-1966, after noting the presence of the accused and of the P. S. I., it was recorded that two witnesses had been examined and the ease as adjourned to 7-11-1966 tor cross-examination by the accused. On 7-11-1966, it was noted that the accused was not present and the Presiding Officer was on special duty. The case was accordingly adjourned to 15-11-1966 for appropriate proceedings. On 15-11-1966. it was again recorded that the accused had not come from jail. The case was adjourned to 19-11-1966 for calling the accused. On 19-11-1966, again it was noted that the accused had not come from jail and he was summoned for 25-11-1966. On that date again, it was noted that the accused had not come from jail and the Presiding Officer and the P. S. I. were on special duty. The accused was accordingly ordered to be called on 5-12-1966. On that date again, it was noted that the accused had not come and that he was to be summoned for 13-12-1966.

(3.) The accused has in his petition in this Court averred that since 3-11-1966 every morning, the petitioner used to get ready but was never informed whether or not he was to be taken to the Court and produced before the Magistrate. The lower Court, according to the averments in the application for bail, used to go on giving dates without the actual production of the petitioner, These averments have been supported by a sworn affidavit of the petitioner D. S Bhntnagar.