(1.) (1) Criminal P.C., 1973 - - S. 439 - - murder case - - specific direction to dispose of case within 4 months given by High Court not complied with - - bail granted.
(2.) THIS is third application for bail on behalf of accused Radhe. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant was granted short term bail by order dated 6.8.93. He is in jail since March 1994. Thereafter he surrendered and moved another application which was disposed of by this Court on 12.5.94 and specific direction was given by this Court to the trial Court to dispose of the case positively within four months from that date i.e. 12.5.94. An application for bail was submitted before the learned trial Court which was rejected on 14.9.94. The learned counsel for the applicant has filed copies of order -sheets of the trial Court and urged that the case was concluded on 24.10.94 and was listed on 29.10.94 for judgment but on that date at 5 P.M. an application was made by the prosecution u/s 311 Cr.P.C. which could finally be disposed of on 28.12.94.The learned counsel, therefore, urged that there has been inordinate delay in disposal of the case and the order of this Court has not also been complied with. The prosecution at the fag -end of the case moved an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. which too was not disposed of immediately but was kept pending for sufficient time.
(3.) I have perused the order -sheets. It was the duty of learned trial Court to have disposed of the case within four months positively. It appears that the learned trial Court was unmindful of the order of this Court and did not dispose of the case as directed and rejected the application due to excess workload. This can hardly be said to be any compliance of the order of this Court. If there was specific direction of this Court it was the duty of the learned trial Court to have disposed of the case as directed within the specified time. The conduct of the leaned presiding officer is not proper. It can be said to amount to contempt of Court.