RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers made available to me on record.

(2.) This case depicts as to how the learned trial Judge, has proceeded with the trial in a casual manner being wholly un-mindful of the fact that the petitioner Rameshwar is in custody for the last ten months and a direction was given by this Court to record the statement of the injured as a first witness.

(3.) The petitioner is facing trial alongwith nine other co- accused in Sessions Case arising from First Information Report No. 97/1994 registered at Police Station, Shahjahapur, Distt. Alwar. The case is pending for trial in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bahror. The first bail-application filed by the petitioner and co-accused Rohitashva was rejected by the Court on 29th July, 1994 as the matter was under investigation and the learned counsel for the Petitioners wanted to argue the case after filing of charge-sheet. After filing of the charge-sheet, second bail application came to be disposed of by this court on 2nd Nov., 1994. While granting bail to the co-accused Rohitashva, a liberty was given to the petitioner to move fresh application before the trial- court after recording the statement of injured Satveer. The concerned Magistrate was also directed to complete committal proceedings as early as possible. A copy of that order was sent to the concerned trial-Court, as well as to the concerned Magistrate. The third bail application moved by the petitioner before this Court was again rejected on Dec. 19, 1994 with a liberty to move fresh application after the statement of injured Satveer was recorded. Though the statement of injured Satveer has not been recorded as yet but the petitioner has now moved this IVth bail-application, presumably, for the reason that the trial Court is proceeding with the trial of the case in a most casual manner. On March 23, 1995 when the bail application was listed in Court a direction was given to record statement of the injured Satveer without any further delay and the trial-Court was also directed to send a report in this regard, so as to reach before this Court on the next date of hearing of the bail-application i.e. April 17, 1995. From the record, it appears that no report from the trial-court has been received, so far as no such report is tagged with the file of the case.