ISRANI, J.—This is "the 5th bail application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C., in F.I.R. No. 245/85 dt. 5.9.1985, which was registered for offence under Secs. 307/302/34 IPC.

2. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is 19/20 years old and was arrested on September 11,1985. In the 3rd bail application filed by the petitioner, it was observed by Honble Justice G.K. Sharma on 3.3.1986 that the petitioner is a young boy of 19-20 years of age, so, in case the trial is not completed within a reasonable time, he would be at liberty to move a fresh bail application. After a period of 3 months, on 7.6.86, 4th bail application No. 1544/86 was filed, in which Honble Justice Farooq Hussan on 16.6.86 observed that the petitioner has been arrested in the month of September, 1985, but the progress of the trial of the case is not satisfactory and it has been delayed considerably. It was, therefore, directed that the trial shall be completed by the trial court within a period of 3 months. If the trial is not-completed within the period of 3 months the petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh bail application on the ground that the direction of this court has not been followed by the trial court. It was also directed that in case the Presiding Officer is either on leave or has not joined, in such an eventuality the case may be transferred to some other court for disposal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that again even though more than 3 months have passed away, no progress has been made in the trial court.

4. It may be pointed out that when this bail application came up for consideration on 12.9.86, it was ordered that the learned Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur be asked to explain why the compliance of the orders issued and in particular the order dated 16.6.1986 has not been made. Learned Distt.& Sessions Judge in his explanation dt. 20 9.86 has stated that the order dt. 16 6.86 of this court did not reach him, therefore no action could be taken with regard to the same. However, nothing has been mentioned why the trial could not be carried on expeditiously earlier also in spite of the directions of this court.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri O.P. Sharma has on the other hand contended that since the order dt. 16.6.86 did not reach the court of Distt. & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, therefore, the same could not be complied with and the trial court is not at fault in not obeying the orders. He has, therefore, contended that the application of the petitioner should be rejected.

6. My attention has been drawn to the case of Durga Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (1) in which this court has held that while rejecting the earlier application of bail, it was directed that the trial of the case be completed within 2 months and when the trial was not completed within 2 months as directed, this court granted bail to the petitioner when another application for bail was filed after the expiry of the period of 2 months.

7. The case of Kalu Khoda Vs. State (2) was a dacoity case in which committal order was set aside, which resulted in delay of disposal of Sessions case. The accused, therefore, applied for grant of bail on account of delay caused due to setting aside of the committal order. It was held that the accused was not responsible for setting aside of committal order. His bail application was therefore, accepted.

8. In the present case, this court repeatedly urged for expeditious trial of the case, which some how has not taken place. In the case of Hussainara Khatoon Vs. Home Secretary State of Bihar, Patna (3) their Lordships of the Supreme Court, Justice P.N. Bhagwati (as he then was) and Justice DA. Desai observed that "it is absolutely essential that persons accused of offences should be speedy tried, so that in case where bail, in proper exercise of discretion, is refused, the accused persons have not to remain in jail longer than is absolutely

Click Here to Read the rest of this document