The principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution does not require all cases to be heard in strict chronological order. Each case has its own unique facts and circumstances, and the court has the discretion to give priority to certain cases over others.

KASLIWAL J.

( 1 ) THE accused Damo submitted a second bail application under section 389 Cr. P. C. in S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 312/1984. Learned Public Prosecutor placing reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Ramju v. The State of Rajasthan raised an objection that the Court cannot pass an order for an early hearing of the above appeal. Learned Single Judge referred the following question for decision by a larger bench: Whether the law laid down in Ramju v. State (supra) admits of no exception and feters the discretion of a Judge in ordering a case to be listed at an early date even Though the case involves a shorter sentence and can be disposed of in a considerable shorter period? In these circumstances, the matter has come before us for considering the correctness of the decision given in Ramjus case (supra ).

( 2 ) IN Ramjus case (supra) third bail application was moved by the accused petitioner which came up for consideration before the Division Bench. It was held in the above case that it was the practice of the courts that whenever a request was made for early hearing of the case out of turn, it was accepted while rejecting the application for suspension of sentence. The parties, who engaged counsel with long purse prayed to the court for preparation of paper book out of the Court, such prayer was granted and as soon as the preparation of the paper book was completed within a shorter space of a month or two, then a further prayer was made that the case may be heard out of turn. It had become the practice of the court to grant such prayer.

( 3 ) IT was further observed that the Judges were on trial. Millions of down trodden people, who were looking to the affairs of the court, felt that the Courts were meant for the rich and not for the poor. There was a general feeling that the rich people engaged a food lawyer as they were in a position to make heavy payments to the advocates. The people having long purses and having vocal advocates prayed to the court to get their cases decided at the earliest and it was generally accepted. It was further observed that: Today in the cause list we find that the appeals, which were instituted in the year 1980 are pending and most of the appellants on these cases are, persons, who are not in a position to engage a lawyer and who have been provided legal aid by the Court. If, the courts cannot decide the innocence or the guilt of the persons, who are behind the bars for years together, then in fact we are not importing justice. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of a life and personal liberty without following the procedure established by law. If the procedure established by law is violative of the principles of natural justice equality, then it is no procedure and it will tantamount to denying the liberty of a decision in the guise of the so called procedure. The object of Article 21 is to prevent the encroachment upon the personal liberty by any of the wings of the State, even in accordance with the law and in conformity with the provisions thereof. There is no doctrine State Necessity in India. In Article 21, the word law has been used in the sense of State made or enacted law and not as equivalent of law in abstract or general sense embodying the principles of natural justice. The expression procedure shall be established by law means the- procedure prescribed by law of the State but it should not be unfair or unreasonable. Law would not include more executive or departmental instructions which have no statutory force but would include intra vires or regulations made in exercise of the statutory powers, inherent powers of the High Court or the Supreme Court which have force of law. It is the procedure of law which directs that the persons who are behind the bars since 1968 or prior to that, should get the decision about their innocence or guilt and the persons, who have just come to the Court in the year 1983 or 1984