BABBU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel, Perused the order dated 22.3.91 passed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Vidisha. He has observed that once bail application was rejected on merits and therefore, further consideration cannot be done by him. However, surprisingly, till today charges have not been framed and no doubt, after charges are framed, the prosecution takes different complexion and, therefore, if the accused is to stand trial, it would be open to him to press for bail in the same Court.

(2.) IT is not understood why such long time it has taken for framing charges. The petitioner was arrested on 21.8.90, challan was filed on 24.9.90. It is not known when committal was made. In any case, since the case came to be committed to the Court of Sessions, counsel should have been heard on charges. Trial, as such, cannot be protracted unduly.

(3.) IN terms of the above directions, this petition for bail is disposed of giving opportunity to the petitioner to approach this Court, if his bail application is rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, where the trial is pending.