MOHAMED YUSUF ALI Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has preferred this application for his release on bail. The applicant had earlier preferred Criminal Application No. 536 of 1992. The same was also for his release on bail. It was rejected on 28-2-1992 on the ground that there was an indication that the applicant though is a medical student has a tendency to abscond and it would not be desirable to grant bail. However taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is a medical student as was disclosed from the documents produced by him, it was further ordered that the respondent No. 1 shall file the complaint within a period of 3 weeks and the Court before which it will be filed, will decide the case within a period of 4 months thereafter.

(2.) IN pursuance of this order, the respondent No. 1 did not file the complaint within 3 weeks i. e. on 26-3-1992. Thereafter however the case has not been completed within a period of 4 months of the filing of the complaint. The roznama which has been produced before this Court shows that the case came up on 7-4-1992 but the accused was not produced from jail custody. However on the same day in the afternoon the accused was produced from jail. His advocate was present and a copy of the complaint was given to the accused, and the matter was adjourned to 21-4-1992. On 21-4-1992 the accused was not produce from jail. His advocate filed vakalatnama. Public Prosecutor was absent. The examination warrant was directed to be issued and the case was adjourned to 5-5-1992. On 5-5-1992 the accused was not produced from jail. Examination warrant was directed to be issued. Prosecution witnesses were absent. Public prosecutor was absent. It appears that the Presiding Officer was on casual leave and therefore the case was required to be adjourned to 18-5-1992. On 18-5-1992 again the accused was not produced by the jail authorities. Examination warrant was directed to be issued. Prosecution witnesses were absent. Public prosecutor was absent and the case was required to be adjourned to 1-6-1992. Thereafter the roznama shows that the case was taken up on 7-6-1992. The accused was produced from jail. Prosecution witnesses were absent. Public Prosecutor was absent and the matter was adjourned to 15-6-1992. On 15-6-1992 the accused was not produced from the jail custody. However his advocate was present. Prosecution witnesses were absent. Public prosecutor was present. The summonses were ordered to be issued to all the prosecution witnesses and the case was required to be adjourned to 23-6-1992. On 23-6-1992 the accused was not produced from jail custody. His advocate was however present. Public Prosecutor was present. The Presiding Officer was on leave and therefore the case was adjourned to 7-7-1992. On 7-7-1992 again the accused was not produced before the Court. Public Prosecutor was absent. Witness V. B. Singh was present. The Presiding Officer was on leave and therefore the case was required to be adjourned to 21-7-1992. On 21-7-1992 again the accused was not produced by the jail authorities. Public Prosecutor was absent. Prosecution witness Mr. V. B. Singh was present. The presiding Officer was on leave and therefore the case was adjourned to 4-8-1992.

(3.) THE contents of the roznama, which have been stated above, clearly indicate that most of the time the accused was not produced before the trial Court by the jail authorities and the case was required to be adjourned. On three occasions the case was required to be adjourned as the presiding Officer was on leave. On some occasions the prosecution witnesses were absent and therefore ultimately the result is that though this Court ordered that the trial of the accused should be completed and the case should be decided within a period of 4 months from the date of the filing of the complaint, the case still does not appear to have been commenced. Neither the trial Court nor the complainant has moved this Court for extension of time limit that was prescribed. In view of the order passed earlier, to which I have referred to earlier, it was necessary for the trial Court to seek extension of time and the complainant also ought to have moved this Court for extension of time if they had some difficulty in completing the trial within the stipulated time. Apart from this, it cannot be said that merely because the accused was not being produced before the Court by the jail authorities, the trial Court was helpless in the matter. It was necessary for the trial Court to inform the concerned authorities of the jail to see that the accused is produced before the Court on the dates appointed as it was a time-bound case and it was directed by this Court that it should be completed within the stipulated period of 4 months. No efforts appear to have been made by the trial Court at all in this direction except examination warrants appear to have been issued and the next dates appear to have been given. Under these circumstances, I do not think it would be proper to detain the accused and refuse the bail to him.