BRAHMRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bail application was received by post from jail where the accused applicant Brahmraj submitted that he is lounging in jail for last more than three years and nine months and the trial is not in sight. He submitted that even the charge-sheet was submitted after 94 days of his arrest and therefore, he was not only not in proper judicial custody but was in illegal detention. Notice of this bail-application was given to the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who was trying the case, was also asked to explain as to why trial in the case has not been completed when the accused is in jail for the last so many years. During this period appearance was also put by the learned counsel.

(2.) I have received the explanation of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who has stated that only thirteen witnesses have been examined so far and nine more witnesses are yet to be examined. He has submitted that he had to issue the bailable warrant even to one Shri Arun Kumar Pareek, M.J.M. as he has not been attending the Court. He has also stated that the trial is likely to be completed by June, 1993.

(3.) Narration of the aforesaid facts indicate that the prosecution agency and the Court have miserably failed to do their duties properly inasmuch as in case where only twenty two witnesses were to be examined, it has taken more than four years to complete the trial. The very words "Sessions Case" indicate that the trial should be completed in one session instead unfortunately, the trials are not completed even in years and the Court has to assemble in several sessions to complete one sessions trial. In my opinion, this negation of justice and contrary to the spirit of law. It behoves the learned Sessions Judges to give effect to the meaning of the word Sessions as far as possible. They should ask the Public Prosecutor to ensure that the witnesses are in attendance when the sessions case opens. They should arrange their diaries also accordingly and if necessary, write to the concerned Sr. Police Officer to ensure the attendance of the witnesses so that this Court does not have to bemoan the manner in which trials proceed. In the instant case, accused was arrested on 31st Dec., 1988. He was remanded to judicial custody in Jan., 1989 and without adjudication of the case, he is in jail till date i.e. for more than four years. In a case where maximum imprisonment prescribed by law is not more than ten years, it would be denial of justice in case, a poor man who could not afford a lawyer and could not write even a letter to the Court has to remain inside for four years without completion of trial. I cannot add to the miseries already suffered by him and therefore, direct that the accused petitioner shall be released on bail forthwith.