SHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS necessary for the disposal of this petition under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are that in connection with FIR No. 122 dated December 30, 1986, U 302/201/404/148/149/379 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, Sher Singh, one of the accused, was granted pardon. He moved the trial Court on two occasions for bail but his applications were rejected. He also made an unsuccessful attempt to secure bail from this Court in Cri. Misc. No. 10706-M of 1990.

(2.) IT has been stated that all the accused in the aforesaid case are on bail. The statement of the approver as PW 1 was concluded in the trial Court on August 31, 1989. The case is still pending at the stage of prosecution evidence and long adjournments are being granted and at the speed at which the trial is progressing, it will take considerably long period to conclude the trial. Already the petitioner had been in custody for over 3-1/2 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the circumstances of the case the petitioner may be enlarged on bail in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent failure of justice in the case of the petitioner. He seeks support from the law laid down in a Full Bench decision in Prem Chand v. The State, 1985(2) Recent Criminal Reports 386. The learned Judges of the Full Bench took the view that after the evidence of the approver had been recorded, no useful purpose was served in his further detention in the jail and bail can be granted in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court. The learned Judges took the view that the provision that bail shall not be granted to the approver till the conclusion of trial was intended for the security of the approve over himself and there was no reason to suppose that machinery of law and order would not be able to give the necessary protection to the approver in the event of his release on bail.

(3.) IT may, however, be observed that while disposing of Cri. Misc. No. 10706-M of 1990, S.S. Grewal, J had directed that the trial shall be expedited. The said direction does not appear to have had the desired effect. In order to avoid further hardship to the petitioner, it is directed that the trial shall be conclude as far as possible within the next three months. A copy of this order be got noted from the Presiding Officer of the Court where the case in under trial. On the disposal of the case, how shall send a brief report to the Court with regard to the compliance of this order. The petition is disposed of with these observations. Order accordingly