RAJPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second bail application. The first bail application was dismissed on merits. The learned counsel contended that the prosecution case is un natural as according to the prosecution the applicant made no attempt to commit murder of the person who had committed murder of his father. He also contended that the prosecution could not explain as to how the spade was brought on the spot. In my opinion, these arguments cannot be considered in second bail application as they are beyond its scope.

(2.) THE learned counsel contended that the incident is of 9-2-1998 and despite the fact that more than two years have elapsed nor a single eye-witness has yet been examined. He has produced photo-state copy of the order sheet from 14-5-1998 till 27-11-1999. A perusal of the order sheet indicates that for reason or the other the evidence could not be recorded. THE delay appears to have been caused by what can be called system delays. Only incom plete statement was recorded at the fag end of8-3-1999.

(3.) IN a later Full Bench decision in Madheshwardhari Singh and another v. State of Bihar, AIR 1986 Patna 324, scope of Article 21 was widened and it was held that the fundamental right to a speedy public trial extends to all criminal prosecu tions for all offences generically, irrespec tive of their nature. The right to speedy-public trial is applicable not to the actual proceedings in the Court but includes within its sweep the proceeding police in vestigation in a criminal prosecution as well. Speedy investigation and trial of criminal prosecution is manifested both by letter and spirit of Code giving effect to fundamental right of speedy public trial therefore would not in any way conflict with provisions of Code.