ORDER

A.M. Bbattacharjee, C. J. - This application for bail has come up before us from the Goa Bench under somewhat unusual circumstances. An earlier application for bail was filed before a learned Single Judge of that Bench who rejected the same. Such rejection, by itself, may not be unusual; but the rejection way made with some extraordinarily unusual observations. The learned Judge, while rejecting the application of bail on 13.12.1993, observed that "the Petitioner is bound to remain in custody till the final disposal of the trial". We are afraid, and this we say with respect, that the learned Judge went too far and in purporting to deprive and divest the accused - Applicant of all his rights to move for bail afresh at any subsequent stage of the trail, the learned Judge acted in a manner which is difficult to appreciate. We cannot forget that the right of the accused to move for bail, whether at the pre-trial, trial or post-trial stage, concerns his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and now that the said Article has been endowed with majestic magnitude amplitude and plenitude in and since the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi1, conside