JUGRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. D. Dubey, J. 1. This is the first bail application.

(2.) THE prosecution story is that the applicants, Rajveer Singh and two unknown persons armed with fire- arms had fired at Jogendra Singh and Dharmendra Singh causing the death of Jogendra Singh at the spot. Dharmendra Singh was taken to S. N. Hospital, Agra, where he was" found dead. THE occurrence is said to have taken place in the field of village Nagla Prem of Police Station Etmadpur, district Agra at 5. 30 p. m. on 31-7-1989 while Rajveer Singh and his son were returning from Chauli to their house in the aforesaid village. It has been alleged that the occurrence had been seen by Laxmi Raj, Ashok, Har Prasad, Rampal Singh and many others. THE maker of the report Harish is said to have fired from his licensed gun towards the assilants and thereupon the applicants and his companions are said to have run away towards west,

(3.) THIS application has been opposed by the complainant and the State on the ground that the offence committed by the applicants Rajveer Singh and two unknown persons was quite serious. Learned counsel urged that in this matter the delay in commencement of trial was not on account of laxity of the prosecution. The case diary had been summoned in this case on 7-12-1989. The bail application of Rajveer Singh was rejected on 25-5-1990. The case diary was returned in July 1990. The complainant had moved an application before the Sessions Judge, Agra complaining that the Judicial Magistrate concerned was deliberately delaying the committal proceedings. Rajveer Singh, who has been granted bail by me on 20-12-1990 has started misusing his bail by not presenting himself on the date fixed. In this way, the accused them selves are responsible for the delay. It was argued that it is not a. universal rule that where ever there is a delay in trial the accused should be released on bail. My attention has been drawn to several case laws by learned counsel for the complainant in support of his contention that the delay in commence ment of trial cannot be a good ground for bail.