RAMLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant third bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-Ramlal, who is languishing in jail from 30.4.2007 in relation to the recovery of contraband poppy straw weighing 93 kg. The first bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 25.7.2008. Thereafter, when the trial of the case was not being proceeded expeditiously, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a second bail application being S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 3079/2011. This court whilst deciding the aforesaid bail application on 14.6.2011 directed the trial court to expedite the trial of the case and complete the same as soon as possible. Despite the specific direction of this Court, the trial court could not proceed with the trial because of the stubborn attitude of the prosecution in not producing the witnesses and therefore the accused petitioner has now approached this Court by way of this third bail application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the order-sheets of the trial court which show that after the directions of this Court on 14.6.2011 in the second bail application, only two witnesses have been examined at the trial.

(2.) The order-sheets of the trial court also show that the witnesses are repeatedly not appearing in the trial court despite the DO letters being sent by the court to the Superintendent of Police concerned. It appears that the prosecution after filing the charge-sheet has literally forgotten about the case and has left the trial court to struggle for securing the attendance of the witnesses for giving evidence. This in the opinion of this Court cannot be a true compliance of letter and spirit of the Arti. 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the fundamental right of every accused to be tried speedily. The prosecution is an agency with all means and mechanism available to it for having the evidence recorded at the trial expeditiously. The prosecution cannot be permitted to file the charge-sheet and then to forget about the case. The time has come when cries are being raised from all corners of the society for having the trials of the cases expedited. The situation wherein three police officers whose summoning was initiated in the year 2008 are not appearing for deposing at the trial despite a lapse of almost five years cannot be accepted. The approach of the prosecution agency in this regard is lackadaisical to say the least.

(3.) This Court feeling dissatisfied with the approach of the prosecution in not giving heed to the order passed by this Court directed the Director General of Police to remain present before this Court for explaining the circumstances.