MEHTAB QURESHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. Narayan, J. This is a second bail application by one Mehtab Qureshi, said to be involved in Case Crime No. 176 of 1994, under Sec tion 302/307 IPG, P. S. Chamanganj, district Kanpur Nagar.

(2.) THIS time bail has been desired on the ground of behaviour of the prosecution agency in the matter of trial. The applicant has filed copies of the older-sheet of the Court of Sessions from 23-2-1995 to 10-5- 1995 to show that there have been almost seven adjournments on the part of the State for non- availability of the witnesses. At least the order does not show as to why the witnesses had not come and whatever be the reason, the accused, who is already in jail, is not to suffer for the lethargy or simple desire of the pro secution, what to say of its witnesses. Where the accused is in jail, even if he be one of several, the matters are to be looked upon with an eye of agar-ness by all courts. Whatever be the provisions of law in entertaining, grant ing or refusing bail, in every case, the fact remains that there is always a presumption of not guilty with the accused and ho should not be made to suffer imprisonment because the chances that ho could be acquitted may be one percent or. 5 percent, can never be denied and the courts never sit to compensate this wrong. In view of this situation, the behaviour of prosecution in this case in proceedings with the trial, cannot be looked upon with the eye of approval and this alone should constitute a reason for granting bail.