SHYAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are three of the fourteen accused persons facing trial in the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar. The petitioners, besides some of the coaccused persons, stand charged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed dacoity in the house of Raghunath Nayak in village Rangamaru in the district of Ganjam during the night of April 21/22, 1982, being armed with guns and lathis in the course of which a number of articles were removed after keeping the inmates of the house under awe and causing hurt to some of them. On the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was placed after a prima facie case was found out. On commitment, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge found a case for framing the charge against the petitioners. On a perusal of the materials gathered in the course of investigation, it would not be appropriate at this stage to say that there are no materials to connect the petitioners with the commission of the offence. While dealing with a matter of bail, it would not be desirable and proper to go into the sufficiency or reliability of the materials placed by the investigating agency and this is not the stage for documentation on merits.

(2.) Inviting my attention to the principles laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Sayeed Ahmad v. State and Rajendra Gosain v. Superintendent, District Jail, Banda and another2 and by the Rajasthan High Court in Chhitar v. State3, Mr. Mohanty has urged on behalf of the petitioners that there has been no legal and proper remand of the petitioners to custody and the illegal detention constitutes a ground for the grant of bail. In the instant case, however, the orders passed in the order sheet by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge would not indicate that the petitioners are in illegal detention. The petitioners had been produced in the trial court for the last occasion on February 20, 1984 when the case was posted to March 14, 1984 for fixing the dates of trial with a direction to issue a letter to the committing court to cause producing of the material objects. Thereafter on a number of occasions, the petitioners have not been produced in the court for want to escort party as intimated to the court by the police agency. Fresh requisitions have been issued to cause production of the petitioners on different dates and the case now stands posted to August 13, 1984 for production of the petitioners and the other accused persons who are in custody for fixing the dates of trial. The petitioners have been detained in custody being charged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. I would, however, refer to some disquieting features hereinafter with regard to the non-production of the petitioners and the other accused persons in custody on some of the dates to which the case was posted and the lack of effective control over the proceedings by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge which has resulted in gross delay in the trial of the petitioners. Had taken place during the night of April 21/22, 1982. After a prolonged investigation in the course of which the accused persons were arrested in different batches, a charge-sheet was placed and it was received by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhanjanagar, on October 28, 1982. After some adjournments and after the papers to be supplied to the accused persons were made ready and supplied the order of commitment was passed on February

(3.) 1983. As provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sessions cases need Expeditious disposal. Rules and instructions have been issued by this Court to the subordinate courts for disposal of sessions cases within six months from the dates of commitment. This case was. therefore, to be normally disposed of by the end of July. 1983. Not six months but more than sixteen months have passed and the dates of trial have not yet been fixed.