SALIM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a race and rush for enacting laws. Those entrusted with passing legislations are rarely concerned with the implementation. The Welfare State seems to be happy by placing on record that it has passed ante -dowry laws and several other laws providing for stringent and deterrent punishments for dowry deaths, illegal traffic in narcotics and psychotropic substances and similar other crimes. They feel that their responsibility is over by giving the public sop by hard bound statutes, taking a way sometimes the discretion of the Court in the matter of bails and passing sentences. The police is happy by releasing statistics to the press as to number of cases registered, investigated and challenged it in the Court. If the cases are not decided the blame is placed at the doors of the judiciary to say that the fault lies there. Rare and possibly never, one bothers to look at and find out the cause for delay and take effective remedial steps at eradicating such causes. This is neither a voice of frustration nor a hollow criticism. It is what necessarily follows from the hard facts of the present case.

(2.) THE accused/petitioner facing a charge u/s 302 I.P.C. having caused brutal murder of his own wife because his dowry demands were not fulfilled has come up to this Court seeking bail for the fifth time. His earlier four petitions have been rejected on consideration of merits of the case against him; this Court having expressed an opinion repeatedly that the nature of the accusation and the facts of the case did not justify bail being granted to him. This time, plea of delay at the trial violating fundamental right of an accused to speedy trial has been forcibly pressed in service in support of prayer for bail. I have called for the record of the sessions trial and looked into it.

(3.) INVESTIGATION having been completed, challan was filed on 9 -10 -87. The case was committed to the Court of sessions on 13 -11 -1987 and was taken up on 27 -11 -87 for the first time by the Sessions Court. A simple charge u/s. 302 I.P.C., which would not have taken more than 10 minutes in being framed by any judicial officer of the rank of Sessions Judge, took not less than 13 dates of hearing; a fact which deserves to be noticed by the District and Sessions Judge, Gwalior conducting annual inspections of the Courts subordinate to him. Thereafter, the case was posted for trial. The progress of the trial thereafter deserves to be noticed and would cause concern to anyone who has a little faith in the sense of law and justice. For convenience, I sum up the gist of several proceedings in a tabular form : -