SHAIKH ABDUL KADER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for bail filed by the applicant/ original accused who is facing trial for an offence punishable under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The allegations against the applicant/original accused is that on 9th february, 2002, at about 4. 00 p. m. , the applicant/original accused killed one shaikh Salim alias Gaurishankar by firing his gun and also injured Mrs. Zainub Bi Shaikh. The charge sheet had been filed by the Police after the completion of the investigation and the case now stands to the Court of Sessions and is registered as Session Case No. 23/2002. On committal, the learned sessions Judge, Panaji, has framed a charge against the applicant/original accused for an offence punishable under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian penal Code and sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 on 3rd July, 2002. The recording of the evidence, however, could not commence as the muddemal articles which. had been sent to the Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad, had not been received back.

(2.) Mrs. Winniie Coutinho, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State states that the report from the Central Forensic Laboratory, hyderabad and the muddemal articles have been received back and the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, therefore, would be able to commence the recording of the evidence.

(3.) The applicant/original accused had filed Bail Application No. 26/2003 before the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, praying for his release on bail. The learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, by his order dated 17th February, 2003, rejected the application for bail. The ground that was urged before the learned sessions Judge, Panaji, was that due to delay of the commencement of the trial the valuable right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of india for speedy trial was infringed and, therefore, bail was sought on this ground. The learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, in his order at para 3 has observed that though the charge was framed on 3rd July, 2003, the recording of the evidence could not commence because the muddemal articles had not been received back from the Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad. The learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, also observed that the offence for which the applicant/original accused was charged was serious in nature and the case was based on the evidence-of eye-witnesses and, therefore, declined to release the applicant/original accused on bail. Hence, the present application.