THIRUMURI BHASKARA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri. V. Rajagopal Reddy. the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that there is no legal, moral or ethical justification to detain the petitioner, who is A-2 in Sessions Case No. 35 of 1982 on the tile of the Sessions Court, Cuddapah, arising out of the Crime No. 5 of 1981 of Chitwal Police Station, Rajampet taluk in the Sub-Jail for the last one year and four months without trial, though the Supreme Court repeatedly deprecated the detention of an accused in Sessions cases without trial for a period which exceeds a reasonable period and hence the petitioner herein should be released on bail.

(2.) Opposing this petition, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that there are no laches on the part of the State in this case, as investigation was completed within the period prescribed under Section 167 Cr.P.C. and a charge sheet was filed immediately after the investigation and the case was committed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate to the Sessions Court on 3-4-1982 and the same was numbered as Sessions Case No. 35 of 1982 and posted to 12-7-1982 and finally adjourned to 19-7-1982 for trial and thus the trial of the petitioner is being taken up with in three months from the date of the committal order. He further submits that when once the charge sheet was filed within the reasonable time, the State cannot be found fault with for the delay caused in the trial of the case, since the trial is a matter concerned with the Court and he State has nothing to do with it and because the trial was not taken up immediately after the case was committed to the Sessions Court, the delay of the trial does not provide the ground for the accused to claim for the grant of bail as of right especially when he is involved in a murder case and when it is attributed that he caused the fatal blow.

(3.) It would be agonising to hear from the counsel appearing for the accused that in several murder cases the accused are rotting in sub-jails without trial for, years together. It is now well recognised that speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. No one should, therefore, be allowed to be confined in jail for more than a reasonable period of time. The Magistrate is given the power under Section 167 Cr. P. C. not to extend the judicial remand beyond 0 days in cases of offences punishable with imprisonment for life or for a term of not less than 10 years and to release the accused on bail if the investigation is not completed within 90 days and the Magistrate can do so suo motu even if the accused does not file an application for bail. If the investigation is completed within 90 days and if the application filed by the accused before the commencement of the investigation or after the charge sheet is filed is dismissed on the ground that the fatal injuries are attributable to the accused, who filed the bail application the accused can be detained in the Sub-Jail till the trial is taken up. But if the accused are confined in jail for more than a reasonable period of time, the Supreme Court gave the power to Sessions Courts, and the High Courts to release such accused on bail subject to usual terms and conditions, (vide Kadra Pehadiya vs, State of Bihar 1981 Crl. L J. 481 (SC).