IMPORTANT POINT
Bail should not be granted merely on the ground of delay. In every case it should be decided on merits considering the interest of the society the State and even that of the relations of the victim.

JUDGMENT

Rajeshwar Singh, J. - It has been a pleasure to hear the cool argument of applicant's counsel Shri Sengar on a point of law in this third bail application Just after hearing some ball applications where the applicant tried to strengthen his argument by volume of his voice with matching expression. The legal point pressed is that if a criminal case cannot be concluded within one year then bail has to be granted and in this case, the applicant has been in jail for one year and nine months. The argument has been expanded by saying that speedy trial is a right of citizen and bail has to be granted in recognition of the fundamental right and out of respect to the Constitution. During the course of argument, it has also come that two witnesses have been examined in this case in January, 1988.

2. For the aforesaid proposition of law, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the Full Bench Case of Patna High Court styled Anurag Baitha v. State of Bihar1. In this case, majority judgment was delivered by Chief Justice S.S. Sindhawalia. There is no doubt that this majority judgment supports the case of the applicant. It was said in the said judgment that appellant would become entitled to claim bail on the ground of delay in hearing the appeal itself unless there are cogent grounds for acting, otherwise. The judgment seems to lay down that the same principle will apply in Sessions Trial and if the matter cannot be concluded in a year, the bail should be granted. In this judgment a number of decisions including that of the Supreme Court were considered. Referring to one Supreme Court case, it was remarked-"With deepest respect, I am unable to concur with the view In State (through Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Delhi) v. Jaspal Singh Gill, which with great reverence appears to me as having some-what misconstrued the underlying ratio of Koshmira Singh's case". Thus, it seems that the majority Judgment did not concur with the case of Jaspal Singh Gill, a case decided by the Supreme Court, and drew support from some other cases of Supreme Court. The matter does not end here. The third judge took a different view and said that he was not able to agree that if an appeal is not disposed of within a period of one year, the appellant may be considered for release on bail on the ground of delay in the disposal of the appeal, even though on merits, he is not entitled to the grant of bail. He further states that in law, as in life, there arc no invariable absolutes. Neither life nor law can be reduced to mere but despotic formulae. I also find in the minority judgment that orders for bail on the ground of delays may create paradise for criminals and expose the law abiding and peaceful citizen to horrors and dangers. The majority sought to put very shocking and heinous crimes on a slightly different footing. About this, the minority judgment said that there will be a further controversy as to which is a very shocking and heinous crime as for one it may be very shocking but for the other it may not be so and the categorization and classification of such case will further entail the delay in the disposal of the appeal itself The learned judge in the minority judgment concluded saying that one cannot forget that this is a society consisting not only of the criminals alone but innocent and. law abiding and law fearing people also whose interest is also to be safeguarded side by side with the interest of the criminals.

Thus, the Authority of majority judgment is considerable weakened because the majority could not explain the Supreme Court case of Jaspal Singh Gill and merely declined to concur with the view taken in it and the third judge gave a dissenting judgment.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant has laid much stress on the high sounding principle that personal liberty of the citizen is involved. Of course, liberty is to be secured to a citizen; but through process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the int