OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this Third Bail application for his release on bail during the pendency of the trial in Sessions Case No. 49 of 1990 pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner.

(2.) Petitioner Om Prakash, along with eleven other accused, is facing trial in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 302, 323, 324, 147, 148 and 149, I.P.C. He was arrested in this case on 4-2-90. After his arrest, he filed a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, which was dismissed by the order dated 10-10-90. Dissatisfied with the order dated 10-10-90, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dismissing his first bail application, the petitioner preferred a bail application before this Court which was dismissed on 1-2-91. As the trial was proceeding with a slow speed, after examination of some of the prosecution witnesses, the petitioner filed second bail application, which was dismissed by this Court on 14-1-94. While dismissing the second bail application, this Court directed the trial Court to complete the trial within the period of six months from that day. The trial has not been completed so far though the period of six months, fixed by this Court for completing the trial, has expired. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred this Third Bail Application on the ground that since the directions issued by this Court for completing the trial within six months have not been complied with by the trial Court, therefore, he should be released on bail.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the directions issued by this Court for completing the trial within six months have been flouted by the trial Court and the trial has not been completed though eight months have elapsed and the prosecution is delaying the matter on one pretext or the other and the delay cannot be attributed to the accused, therefore, the accused-petitioner may be released on bail as the persons similarly situated have already been ordered to be released on bail. It has, also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a speedy trial is the Constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which has been denied to the petitioner and, therefore, he deserves to be released on bail. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna AIR 1979 SC 1360 : (1979 Cri LJ 1036), Kadre Pehadiya v. State of Bihar AIR 1981 SC 939 (1981 Cri LJ 481 Loola Bisira v. State 1986 Cr LR (Raj.) 625, Lokesh Bhardwaj Versus the State of Rajasthan (1987 Cr LR (Raj.) 65), Mithu Singh v. State (1987 RCC 113), Surya Narain Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1987 Patna 219), Arjun Singh Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1988 Cr LR (Raj.) 476 and Ranchhod v. State of Rajasthan (1994 (1) WLN 221). The learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, have supported the order passed by the Court below and submitted that since the trial is at the concluding stage and the next date fixed in the case for examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses is 23-9-94, therefore, the bail application, filed by the petitioner, deserves to be dismissed. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor have placed reliance over. Heera Ram v. State of Rajasthan (S. B. Criminal Fourth Bail Application No. 69 of 1992) and Kana Ram v. State of Rajasthan (S. B. Criminal Second Bail Application No. 785 of 1994).