SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE to A.G. Punjab.

(2.) MR . S.S. Randhawa, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice, on the asking of the Court. With the consent of Sh. D.S. Walia, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sh. S.S. Randhawa, DAG Punjab, I propose to dispose of this case at the motion hearing stage. Sukhdev Singh- petitioner has approached this Court seeking bail pending trial under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the main ground on which the bail is sought is that while other co-accused were granted the concession of bail, he did not approach and applied for bail as there was evidence of extra judicial confession and since the two witnesses of extra judicial confession have been examined at the trial and they have resied from their statements which has been quoted in the petition hence on that basis it has been urged that the petitioner be now granted bail. It is relevant to note that the trial of the case has already commenced and it is a part-heard case. Sh. Walia, however, states that the petitioner would not have approached this Court had the trial Judge not adjourned the hearing of the case to such a long date as 24.2.1998 which was fixed on 23.10.1997. Prima facie the adjournment of a part-heard Sessions trial and that too of a murder case for a period of more than three months is wholly unjustified and uncalled for. The Registry is directed to call for a report from the concerned trial Judge as to under what circumstances hearing of the part heard Sessions trial of a murder charge was adjourned for such a long date. The explanation shall be received through the District and Sessions Judge. The learned District and Sessions Judge shall forward the same along with its own report and comments.