ARJUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is seventh bail application in a case where the accused was arrested on January 27, 1986 for the alleged murder of his wife. The charge sheet was filed on April 28, 1986 and the accused is facing trial along with another accused Guman Singh, who is on bail.

(2.) THE first bail application filed by the accused petitioner was dismissed by this Court under order dated April 17, 1986 observing that the accused may approach this Court again after the charge sheet is filed. The second bail application being S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 1134/1986 was filed on the ground that since, the petitioner has remained in custody for 90 days and charge sheet was not filed within 90 days be is entitled to be released on bail. That application, was dismissed by this Court on June 30, 1986 as a view was taken that the time of 24 hours in police custody after the arrest is to be excluded under Section 167 Cr. PC. Another application being S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 2417 of 1986 was filed on September, 1986 and that application was not, pressed, and therefore, the same was dismissed under order dated, September 23, 1986. Earlier to this the petitioner moved a bail application, being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1964 of 1987 which was dismissed on August 11, 1987. The learned Public Prosecutor undertook to examine remaining material six witnesses within two months. Taking this into consideration the Court did not think it fit to enlarge the accused on bail. This Court also orderd - - I extend the time by four months from the date original time granted by this Court expires as sought by the trial Court. Another bail application NO. 3057 of 1986 was dismissed by this Court directing the trial Court to examine material witnesses first. Four month's time was fixed under the aforesaid order to examine the material witnesses after framing of the charge, and it was observed that as and when the material witnesses are examined in the trial Court, the accused -petitioner may move the trial Court, and, if necessary, this Court for bail. That application was numbered as the fifth bail application. It appears that during the aforesaid time of four months the matertal witness were examined but the trial did not conclud. It was after the aforesaid order that S.B. Criminal Misc. Sixth Bail Application No. 3438 of 1987 was filed in this Court after the examination of material witnesses. That application was dismissed on November 30, 1987. This Court observed that looking to the fact that the trial of the case is at the fag end, it will not be proper to release the accused on bail. This Court directed the trial Court to complete the trial within three months. Mr. Tyagi undertook to complete the trial within the aforesaid period, so far as prosecution evidence is concerned. It appears that after the aforesaid order was made the trial had not yet been concluded and four witnesses of the prosecution, two alleged witnesses of recovery of a 'Gadda' as well as of tempo are yet to be examined. Though one of the Investigating Officer was present on June 30, 1988, but he was not examined by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that he being the Investigating Officer, he will be examined, after the remaining witnesses of the prosecution namely the witnesses of recovery are examined. From narration of the above facts its will be clear that for no fault of the accused or of the complainant but on account of the Public Prosecutor of the CBI the trial of the case in which the accused is in custody since January 27, 1986 almost for 31 months has not been concluded. It is a very sad state of affairs. When this Court directed to conclude the trial of the case and the learned Public Prosecutor under took to conclude the trial within two months, the trial has not been concluded. It appears that the Court has no control over the prosecution.Section 167 Cr. PC. Section 228(1)(b) of the Code, of Criminal Procedure

(3.) THIS Court in several casee has taken a view that if direction is given by this Court to dispose of a case within specific time and if for no valid reasons the trial is not concluded within specific time, then the accused should be released on bail. In the case of Lokesh Bhardwaj v. State of Raj. (supra) a Judge of this Court took a view in the fifth bail application that the accused -petitioner is not expected to suffer on account of any mistake or delay in the office of this Court and if the trial is not completed within time specified by this Court, then the accused should be released on bail.