KANIRAM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these bail petitions u/s. 439 CrPC have a common thread, although they relate to crimes registered at various police stations against different persons. All of them, barring only M.Cr.C. 1200/90 alone, are repeaters, having lost in their bid, to get bail on merits. The common thread that runs through these petitions is the common ground of delay raised in all these petitions, and stressed by all the learned counsel appearing in these cases. Trials in all these cases have been delayed for want of committal orders which in turn have been delayed or deferred for non -production of reports, either from the Chemical Examiners or from the State Forensic Laboratory with the net result that the petitioners undoubtedly accused of serious crimes, like murder and dacoity, are suffering pretrial incarceration. They have a point -when they ask, how long and after all how long they should wait for filing of reports from State Forensic Science Laboratory, the passing of committal orders at times very conveniently and comfortably deferred, by the magistrates, at the behest of some of the sessions judges, putting a self -serving assumptive interpretations of Criminal Court Rules and Orders framed by this Court, issuing administrative instructions to the magistrates not to commit a case to sessions until such reports are filed. (It is no exaggeration but a grim reality emerging from records of this bunch of petitions.) The investigating agency after filing of charge sheet to avoid attracting proviso to section 167(2) CrPC, seldom if ever bothers much less evinces any interest, in producing or filing such reports, in cases where incomplete charge sheets are filed. While this rigmarole goes on, it is the accused, who has to pay for all this delay.

(2.) LEARNED counsels appearing for the petitioners expressing their concern and anxiety for expeditious trial, submitted that in view of a considerable number of pending sessions trials, there was no possibility of any early trial in near future even if the case stands committed to sessions for trial.

(3.) EXCLUDING from consideration the time that has elapsed, which on an average comes to six months, the prospects of a trial, in the context of above noted pendency in the ordinary course, can well be gauged.