MANORANJAN MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 302, 304 -B, 498 -A read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Petitioner is the husband of the deceased. Two other accused persons, namely the parents of the Petitioner have been released on bail pursuant to order dated 3 -4 -1998. However, the prayer for bail of the present Petitioner was rejected on 25 -6 -1998. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed fresh application for bail before the trial court. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner had submitted before the trial court that the Petitioner was ailing and as such prayer for bail should be considered. The said prayer has been rejected by the trial court by order dated 25 -9 -1998. However the trial court has directed the Superintendent, Circle Jail. Choudwar, to take proper care of the Petitioner as and when necessary by sending him to S.C.B. Medical College Hospital. Cuttack.

(2.) IT is now contended before this Court that earlier in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3836/97, the High Court had directed by order dated 28 -10 -1997 while rejecting the bail application of all the accused persons that the trial has to be expedited. As a matter of fact, this Court had passed order to the effect that the case should be committed within a period of one month and there after framing of the charge shall be considered by the Sessions Judge within fifteen days and the trial should be completed within three months thereafter. Mr. Mohapatra appearing for the Petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in, 1985 (1) Crimes 439 (Juria & Jurinath Gyude v. State of Orissa) and of the Rajasthan High Court reported in, 1989 (2) Crimes 448 ( Mohar Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan) and, 1993 (2) Current Criminal 1208 (Jhaboo Ram v. The State of Rajasthan) and contended that where there has been inordinate delay in trial in spite of the direction of the High Court, the accused person must be released on bail.

(3.) FROM the aforesaid portion of the order as quoted, it is apparent that the delay in trial of the accused person was solely on account of negligence on the part of the prosecution in producing the accused person in the trial court. In the present case, after the order dated 28 -10 -1997, the accused has already been committed to the Court of Session. However, it is stated by the counsel for the Petitioner that charges have not been framed and as such the trial has not commenced. It is, of course, unfortunate that the trial court has not complied with the direction of this Court in order dated 28 -10 -1997. However, the circumstances of such non -compliance are not known as the Petitioner has not produced any materials to indicate the reasons for delay in the trial. Be that as it may, after order dated 28 -10 -1997, the matter was before this Court on two other occasions. On the first occasion, on 3 -4 -1998, order was passed releasing two other accused persons on bail while rejecting the prayer for bail of the present Petitioner. Subsequently by order dated 25 -6 -1998, the prayer for bail of the present Petitioner was again rejected. It does not appear from the orders passed on those two occasions that the counsel for the Petitioner had relied upon the factum of delay in trial as a reason for releasing the present Petitioner on bail. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not consider it a fit case where the Petitioner should be released on bail at this stage. However, keeping in view the earlier order, it is directed that the trial should be expedited. It would be open to the Petitioner to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not completed by end of April. 1999. Needless to point out that if there is any other development, it would also be open to the Petitioner to renew his application for bail.