DILIP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Dilip Kumar for the offences under section 304-B/147/201 IPC.

(2.) PERUSED the materials on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties. Without going into the merit of the case, learned counsel for the applicant Sri A. C. Nigam, commiseratingly submitted that the applicant has been incarcerated in Jail for the last more than one year. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that since the date of the applicant having been committed to the court of Sessions, as many as 19 dates were fixed for framing of the charges and the charges are yet to be framed and that on account of the aforesaid laches, when the charges have not yet been framed in the face of 19 dates the applicant cannot be sure of the trial commencing early and he is to continue to undergo the rigours of the prison indefinitely without the guilt having been proved against him.

(3.) I have devoted my utmost consideration to the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I may advert to a decision of this court reported in 1987 AWC 988 on which the learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance. The facts and circumstances in the present case are similar to the facts and circumstances referred to above. The quintessence in the aforesaid case was to the effect that the rights guaranteed to the accused for speedy trial is contained in section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has to take precedence over any other considerations such as seriousness of the offences etc.