BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Grounds set out in the petition have not been adverted to in the course of arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the accused were apprehended on 12th October, 1986 and the challan against them having not been presented to the Designated Court till 12th October, 1987, the accused applicant Balwinder Singh is entitled to be released on bail on this score alone. Raghubir Singh and ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 149, has been cited as authority in support of the contention. In the authority cited the occurrence was of 29/30th November, 1984 and the charge-sheet was filed in December 1985; after the expiry of more than one year. In the present case the accused were apprehended on 12th October, 1986 and the challan against them has been filed in the Designated Court on 24th October, 1987. In this petition which was filed on 8th October, 1987 and listed for hearing on 9th October, 1987 no protest whatsoever was made by the accused-applicant regarding delay in putting the challan against him before the Designated Court. In similar circumstances their Lordships of he Supreme Court observed, "Until the filing of the present writ petitions we find that there was no serious protest by the accused about any delay. After the charge-sheet was filed, we notice that at least on two occasions the prosecuting agency expressed an anxiety to have the case disposed of as expeditiously as possible. We find from the order sheet of the learned Special Judge that on December 19, 1985 the Public Prosecutor filed a petition before him requesting expeditions trial of the case as it was a case of a special importance. From the order-sheet we find that on January 9, 1986, another petition was filed by the Public Prosecutor again requesting that an early date may be fixed for the speedy disposal of the case. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, we do not think that the delay in the investigation and in the trial of the case is so unfair as to warrant our quashing the proceedings on the ground of infringement of the right of the accused to a speedy trial, a part of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. We think that a direction by us that the trial should start soon and proceed from day to day is all that is called for in the present case. In the present case also leaned Designated Court is directed to expedite the trial. No ground for release of the accused-applicant on bail during trial is made out. Dismissed.