LATTO @ LATIF Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the third bail application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail under Sec. 439, Cr. P.C. in Sessions Case No. 41/1986, arising out of FIR No. 162 of 1986, which was registered for an offence under Sections 302, 149, 148, 147 to 324 IPC.

(2.) The first bail application was dismissed vide order dated 12th Jan., and it was observed that the petitioner may move another bail application after some time when eye-witnesses are examined by the trial court. The petitioner moved the second bail application contending that three eye-witnesses had ken examined and no case against the petitioner was made out. This Court tide order dated 10th Sept., 1987, dismissed the second bail application, but it the same time observed as follows:-

(3.) Now, the third bail application has been moved. It is submitted by the accused-petitioner that already more than 10 months have passed, but still. Jibe trial is not over. After passing of the order on the second bail application only three eye-witnesses have been examined so far. While dismissing the second bail application, this Court observed that the petitioner is a young boy of 18 years of age and that the trial should be speedy one as expeditious trial is an integral and essential part of fundamental rights to life and liberty enshrined tinder Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners name was not disclosed in the FIR and that no identification parade was conducted during the investigation. It is also submitted that out of seven accused, six have already been enlarged on bail and the petitioner is the only person to whom bail has not been granted.