ARJUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER approached this Court through jail in art application purported to be one under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein he submitted that his fundamental rights as -guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution have been infringed in as much as case have been. pending against him since last more than six years which had been registered in the year 1981 and 1983. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for more than six years and four months. His submission in the application is that he has approached this Court earlier also in a writ petition where the Division Bench of this Court had directed the early disposal of the case but the hopes expected by this Court have been bailed. This application when was received by the Registry, was placed before Hon'ble Chief Justice on 8th March 1989 on which day Hon'ble Chief Justice directed that the case should be registered as criminal misc. case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thereafter it was listed before me as I was dealing with the roster hearing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. When the case came up for admission before me on 15th March 1989, I called learned Counsel for C.B.I, Shri S.P. Tyagi, and furnished him the carbon copy of petition which was on record. I also directed that the accused should be produced before the Court to argue in person as he does not want services of an Amicus Curiae or a lawyer in legal aid system. The case was directed to be heard on 3 -4 -89 The accused was present in person on 3 -4 -89 but during the course of hearing it was felt by the Court that details of the main case have to be gone into prior to final disposal of the application. Learned counsel for C.B.I. also wanted time for being reply As such case was ordered to be listed today. It is also pertinent to mention that petitioner had and (sic) application or that day raising (sic) evidence(sic) copy of which application was given to the learned Government Advocate for reply. The record of the case have been received and it is borne out from the record that in none of the cases pending, except Shri Arjun Singh, there is no other accused. Different persons have been arrayed as accused in different trial and he is being prosecuted along with other in charge -sheet under Section 120B IPC inter alia other sections.

(2.) THE submission of the petitioner is that though the petitioner has been in jail since 23 -12 -1982 but trials of the cases are not over and keeping an accused in jail for such an inordinate delay is not only frustrating the mandatory provisions of law but is also violative of fundamental rights as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. His further submission is that this court in the writ petition had directed the trial to be completed after recording the evidence day to day but the directives have been violated and C.B.I has considered to be of no avail. It is also submitted that the C.B.I. has mala fide prosecuted the petitioner in several cases by using double standards in as much as the principal accused who are the officers of the Bank have been given up while filing the charge -sheet and have not been arrayed as accused though they were named in the FIR. The prayer made in the petition is that in the circumstances of the case any suitable directive or dead line for the trial period should be issued to the respective trial Court in C.B.I. prosecution so that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 are restored and served.

(3.) I have considered the rival submission after hearing the petitioner in person and learned Counsel for the C.B.I. In all these three cases accused has been charged for offences under Section 120B read with Section 420, 477A Cr.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and with him are, different accused in different cases. They are public servants in different cases may be the bank employees or Railway's employees with whom the conspiracy is alleged. They are facing equally serious charges and, therefore, the case of the accused petitioner cannot be considered in isolation. It is true that he has been in jail since 23 -12 -1982 and it is more than six years and four months that he has been in jail and which is a very high time during which the trial ought to have been completed. There can be nothing more serious than the one that in a case being tried by A.C.J.M. where the powers given to the A.C.J. Magistrate for passing the sentence is maximum for a period upto seven years out of which, but for few months the accused has already completed the period. It reflects upon the functioning of the Court and the prosecution agencies that such serious cases where the accused are in jail, are not given top priority and are also dealt with laixurely. This conduct is highly deplorable and lesser said about it, it is better. But at the same time, the Court has to strike the balance and see the circumstances in totality before passing any order. In a case like the one where there is involvement of the public servants on this count alone the proceedings cannot be quashed as it would be giving premium to those persons on the allegations which are levelled against them. So far as the accused is concerned, be had been released on bail earlier but his bonds, were forfeited since he was detained in other case in Uttar Pradesh which is now subjudice before the Court at Dehradoon. The accused had to be produced against in Rajasthan Court under a warrant of production from the concerned courts. He had been offered bail but he refused to furnish the surety bonds and this is how that be is jail Under the circumstances that such along period has already passed rather the accused has remained in custody almost for a period for which the sentence could have been passed in the case, it would be in the interest of justice that accused be released forthwith, if he produce only a personal bond in the amount of Rs. 10,000/ - (ten thousand) in each case. If he is not prepared to produce the Bond and/or is not interested in conducting his own case while remaining out side even then the prosecution agency will take up the matter in the Court day to day and complete its evidence by the middle of June, 1989. The trial court are accordingly directed that from the next date onwards these cases shall be taken day to day and the prosecution agency will be duty bound to produce the witnesses whom they intend to examine. It will be the duty of the Investigating Officers concerned to be present in Court along with their witnesses for the production of which, he may obtain the necessary process from the court but duty would lie on them to ensure the attendance of the witnesses. The learned trial court shall thereafter ask the accused to enter into the defence and follow the similar procedure and conclude the entire trial by 31st July, 1989. This order shall be punctually observed and the case shall be top priority. This order shall be notified to the learned Counsel for the parties appearing in the trial court by the courts concerned and the accused persons so that they may make necessary arrangements for their representation in the court for taking up the cases in the manner indicated above.