important point
The demise of the appellant’s father also does not ipso facto mean that he should be released on bail more particularly on account of the serious charges against him.

ORDER

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. —

1.This application for bail has been filed directly in this court on the following grounds :

“(1)that the appellant has been in custody for more than seven years and that his conduct in jail has been exemplary;

(2)that on account of the death of his father, there is nobody available to him to pursue the present case,

(3)that no inculpatory evidence has come on record justifying his continued incarceration,

(4)despite the orders of this Court from time to time, the trial was no where near completion and, finally,

(5)that his medical condition required sophisticated life saving treatment which was only possible outside jail.”

2.We are of the opinion that in the light of the facts that several bail applications filed by the appellant raising almost similar issues have been rejected no case for release on bail is made out. We are also of the opinion that the demise of the appellant’s father also does not ipso facto mean that he should be released on bail more particularly on account of the serious charges against him. We are therefore left with the last two points for consideration.

3.Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant has very strenuously urged that despite the directions of this Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs. CBI through its Director1, (2007) 1 SCC 70 while dismissing one of the bail applications filed by the appellant that the trial court was to ensure that the defence witnesses were examined on a day-to-day basis in accordance with a fixed time schedule so that the trial was completed as expeditiously as possible and the judgment delivered, the defence evidence had so far not been completed on account of the delaying tactics on the part of the CBI and it was therefore appropriate that the appellant be released on bail. It has also been pointed out that a direction had also been issued that as the appellant was lodged in Tihar Jail in Delhi and the trial was being conducted in Patna, video conference facilities be provided to the appellant in order to enable him oversee the proceedings in the trial but the said facilities were not being made available to him as the equipment had been damaged. It has also been argued that as the appellant was grossly overweight, he was required to undergo some invasive surgical process which required special care and nursing which could not be made available while the appellant remained in custody. Several documents in support of the appellant’s medical condition have been handed over to us in Court.

4.In reply a counter affidavit on behalf of the CBI has been filed and Mr. A. Sharan, learned ASG has drawn our attention to the enclosures appended therewith to submit that the delay, if any, in the completion of the trial was on account of repeated applications filed by the appellant in the trial court asking for one or other information or the recall of witnesses and as such it did not lie in him to state that the trial was being inordinately delayed. He has also pointed out that the CBI had completed its evidence on 7.6.2006 and that a list of 43 defence witnesses had been given by the appellant of whom only a few had been examined and the case had been adjourned time and again at the instance of the accused or to secure the presence of the remaining defence witnesses. He has also submitted that in the light of Sections 273 and 317 of Cr.P.C the trial could go on even if an accused was not personally present and as such directions should be given by this court that notwithstanding the fact that the video conference facility was out of order the court should go ahead and complete the trial. He has also pleaded that the appellant had been referred to arguably the best medical facility in Delhi i.e. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and that all medical aid would be provided to him as per his needs.

5.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record very carefully. In the cited case it has been obse