IN THE MATTER OF BABU BALA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. Perused the case diary.

(2.) It is submitted that the present petitioner is in custody for about three years and eight months without the trial. It is further submitted that the entire case against him is based on an alleged confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by one of the co-accused, Kurban Ali Mondal which was subsequently retracted by him and such statement being completely self exculpatory in nature, the same cannot be relied upon against the petitioner.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submitted that delay in trial is not due to any fault of the State or any one else, except the present petitioner who was absconding for more than five years. He further submitted that in connection with this case total 21 persons were tried and out of them, four persons have been convicted and the said convicts having preferred an appeal against their conviction, the records have been called for and are now lying before this court. He further submitted that already the said Kurban Ali Mondal has been tried and convicted and one of the circumstance on which such conviction is based is his confession and so long the order of conviction is in force, validity of the such confession can not be questioned. He produced the case diary and pointed out to us the seriousness and gravity of the offence. He further submitted that this is a case of highway robbery at mid-night and all the passengers in two buses were not only robbed, the driver of the bus has been killed on the spot by gun shot injury.