JAGDISH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who is facing trial for offences punishable under S.302, I.P.C. and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act has sought bail. The prosecution case in brief is that during the intervening night of 1st and 2nd June, 1987 Sub-Inspector Jagdish Prasad accompanied by other constables while on duty, at about 1.45 a.m. heard the sound of firing and they reached near House No. 313/13 and found the petitioner coming out of the house and he was apprehended and a country-made revolver was recovered which showed that one bullet had been fired from its chamber. They went upstairs and found Pushpa lying dead. She had bullet injury near her temple. Prima facie it appears that the petitioner has been rightly challaned for the aforesaid offence and thus he does not deserve bail on merits.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, vehemently argued that there has taken place unusual delay in the trial of the case, so petitioner should be granted bail. It is not disputed that as yet one year period has not elapsed for completing the trial in the Sessions Court. What I find is that after the charge was framed in July, 1988 the case was fixed for evidence in the month of December but no evidence was recorded and case has been adjourned to 16th, 17th and 20th March, 1989. It has been repeatedly held by the highest Court that to have a speedy criminal trial is a fundamental right of an accused and Sessions case keeping in view the prevalent circumstances should conclude within one year. Counsel for the petitioner has cited Hussaimara Khatton v. Home Secy. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360; Nimeon Sangma v. Home Secy. Govt of Meghalaya, AIR 1979 SC 1518 Kadra Pehadiya v. State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 939 State v. Maksudan Singh, AIR 1986 Pat, 38 Anurag Baitha v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 Pat 274. All these judgements were considered by Justice H.C. Goel in Crl. Misc. (M) 1123 of 1988 decided on September 13, 1988 Ashok Solomon v. State. Cri. Misc. (M) 1476 of 1987 decided on March 14, 1988 D.P. Wadhwa, J. has also considered the prevailing conditions in the Sessions Court and had occassion to remark that it is highly desirable that the authorities should take urgent steps for appointing sufficient number of Additional Sessions Judges to cope with the ever increasing Sessions cases where accused are languishing in jail. He also pointed out that necessary paraphernalia, like constructing necessary Court buildings and providing necessary staff should also be taken in hand at the earliest. It appears that the authorities have not awaken to the grave situation which is developing in the Sessions Courts. Reported in (1988) 1 DL 407. THE purpose of refusing bail to the accused who have allegedly committed heinous and serious offences is that such accused should not remain at large and their remaining outside the jail and moving in the outside society would have deleterious effects on the mind of the general public. THEy would be also hazardous to the law and order in the society but the very purpose of declining bail to such an accused is lost if the trials in the cases are protracted unnecessarily. It could be that in some very serious cases where large number of witnesses are to be examined; that trial may take some unusual time but normally a trial in a Sessions case should be completed within one year of framing of the charge. If due to some lapse on the part of the prosecution in completing the evidence or due to some lack of time with the Court the trial is not completed within the stipulated period, the accused in such cases should be entitled to bail but if trial is protracted on account of the fault of the accused then in such cases the accused does not deserve bail. However, in the present case the period of one year is not yet over, so the petitioner cannot get bail on the ground of any delay taking place in the trial for the present. However, I direct the trial Court to see that the trial is completed within one year of the framing of the charge and no unnecessary adjournments are granted to the prosecution and if the trial is delayed on account of any lapse on the part of prosecution or due to paucity of time available with the Court then the trial Court shall consider the question of granting bail to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed with the above observations. Petition dismissed.