ROOPA @ RAMROOP Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is third application under Sec. 439 Code Criminal Procedure by the applicant for grant of bail. Applicant has been arrested in connection with crime No. 170/2010 registered at Police Station Sabalgarh, District Morena (M.P.) u/s. 341, 294, 354, 302, 323, 324 & 506-B of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3(1)11, 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on 23/07/2010, since when applicant is in judicial custody. The last bail application M. Cr. C. No. 3037/2011 was rejected on 06/09/2011 as having been withdrawn.

(2.) Learned counsel for applicant has contended that new circumstances arisen in favour of the applicant after rejection of the said application on 06/09/2011 is inordinate and unexplained delay in the criminal trial pending against the applicant for the reasons not attributable to the applicant. Learned counsel for applicant read over the order-sheets dated 04/07/2011, 30/07/2011, 29/08/2011, 01/10/2011, 01/11/2011, 24/11/2011 and 23/12/2011 of the trial court. In all these order-sheets, it is reflected that the applicant has been produced from jail on every occasion but on account of absence of the prosecution witnesses, the court was compelled to adjourn the proceedings.

(3.) Perusal of the order-sheets indicate that the adjournment of the proceedings before the trial court which has occasioned delay in the trial is for reasons not attributable to the applicant accused but appears to be solely attributable to the prosecution for their failure to produce the prosecution witnesses.