SOBHA RAM JUGUNU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the Second Bail application. The first bail application was rejected on merits vide order dated 24/1/1991.

(2.) The learned counsel Sri Dileep Kumar for the applicant accused and the learned counsel Sri Dinesh Chandra Misra for the complainant have drawn the attention of the Court to what has happened in the Session Trial No. 173 of 1990 State v. Shobha Ram to which this bail application relates. Therefore the relevant facts are briefly stated as under: The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Etawah by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah and the same was ordered to be registered in the court of the Sessions Judge vide order dated 6/7/1990. On 17/7/1990 the learned Sessions Judge transferred the Session Trial to the learned IV AddI. Sessions Judge, Etawah for disposal. On 25/7/1990 the date already fixed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 17/7/1990, the applicant accused moved an application for adjournment. Consequently the case was adjourned to 10/8/1990 for charge. On that date the applicant accused moved an application for adjournments which was allowed and the case was adjourned to 18/8/1990 on which date also it was adjourned to 25/8/1990 at the instance of the applicant accused. On that date the case was adjourned to 1/10/1990 on the application of the applicant accused. The Presiding Officer was on leave on 1/10/1990 and, therefore 23/10/1990 was fixed for charge. On that date the applicant accused moved an application for adjournment. Consequently the case was adjourned to 31/10/1990 on which date the lawyers were on strike. Therefore 9/11/1990 was fixed for charge. On that date also the case was adjourned to 15/11/1990 on the application of the applicant accused. On 15/11/1990 the case was adjourned to 23/11/1990 on the application. On 23/11/1990 the case was adjourned to 27/11/1990 on his application. On that date the case was adjourned to 5/12/1990 on the application of the applicant accused. On that date the case was adjourned to 20/12/1990 on his application. The applicant accused moved an application on 20/12/1990 which was ordered to be put up for disposal on 4/1/1991.

(3.) It is clear from a copy of the order-sheet dated 14/1/1991 that a false affidavit was filed on behalf of the applicant accused. The charge was however framed on that date and 8/2/1991 was fixed for prosecution evideilce. On that date the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 14/2/1991 the application for parole was rejected. On 8/3/1991 it was found that the summons was not served on the complainant/informant. Consequently 29/3/1991 was fixed for evidence. The Presiding Officer was busy within the inspection on that date and, therefore 25/4/1991 was fixed for evidence. On that date none of the prosecution witnesses was present and, therefore 16/5/1991 was fixed for evidence. The lawyers were on strike on that date and, therefore 21/6/1991 was fixed for evidence. On that date the witnesses were present. The case was, however adjourned on 21/6/1991 to 19/7/1991 and 20/7/1991 for evidence on the application of the learned counsel for the applicant accused. The Presiding Officer was also on leave upto 10/7/1991 as is clear from the order dated 21/6/1991.