Honble TIBREWAL, J.—Mr. K.K. Mehrish appearing for the petitioner made two fold submissions in support of his arguments to get release of the petitioner. The submissions made by Mr. Mehrish raise two questions which are of general importance. The first question is: —

"Whether an early trial/speedy trial in a criminal case is possible or practicable unless the prosecuting agency and the concerned police officers take interest and feel their accountability and responsibility towards the courts proceedings?"

A second related question is:

"How long an accused be kept in prison as an under-trial even he is facing a charge of murder if the prosecuting agency adopt an attitude of indifference?"

(2) An early decision in a criminal case or sessions trial is possible only if the prosecution witnesses appear in the Court in time. Therefore, it is essential that the witnesses are properly served in time by the concerned authorities and they are produced in the Court. However, the present case demonstrates the helplessness of the Presiding Officer of the court as both the wings, namely; the Prosecuting Agency as well as the concerned police officers have behaved in a callous manner and showed indifference towards the proceedings and orders of the court.

(3) In the present case, the petitioner along with 16 other persons is facing trial under S. 302, I.P.C. The incident took place on May 12, 1990 and three persons lost their lives from the complainants side. The prosecution case is that all the seventeen accused persons armed with axes, guns and Khuntias etc. made an attack on the members of the complainant party causing injuries to Surajmal, Shishupal, Khemraj and Raghunath. Accusation against the petitioner is that he and the co-accused Durga Shanker were having guns and they made gun fires. It is also alleged that the injured persons ran towards the village Narainpura but they were chased by all the seventeen accused persons. Injured Surajmal, Shishupal and Khemraj died due to the injuries sustained by them.

(4) Some of the accused persons have already been released on bail by this Court. The accused petitioner is in custody since May, 1990 and 35 months or so have passed but the trial could not be completed.

(5) Mr. K.K. Mehrish, learned counsel for the petitioner stoutly contended that speedy trial in a criminal case is now a fundamental right of an accused, and he cannot be kept in Jail for an indefinite period. He argued that for the in action or indifference of the police officers the accused petitioner could not be made to suffer as he is not responsible for the delay. It was also contended by the learned counsel that D.O. letters were written to the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kota,to take steps to get the witnesses served upon, but no positive efforts were made by them or by the Station House Officer of the concerned police station. Learned counsel expressed his anguish towards the attitude of all the police officers and contended that if such conditions continued then a time may come when there would be a complete chaos and break-down of judicial system and the fundamental right of an accused for speedy trial shall remain only a formality in papers. Learned counsel read over the various order sheets of the last 11 months of the trial court.

(6) The Public Prosecutor is not present and I am unable to get any assistance from him also.

(7) From the order-sheets of the trial court, it appears that 15th and 16.05.1992 were fixed for recording the statements of the remaining prosecution witnesses. But, no witness was present on both the days and the trial Court directed to issue bailable warrants to secure the attendance of the witnesses. The warrants- were directed to be sent to the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kota with D.O. letter to see that the witnesses are served as the accused were in jail. It was also intimated that the Station House Officer, Police Station, Itawa was taking no interest and a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document