The main legal point established in the judgment is the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and the principle that bail is the rule and detention in jail is the exception.

K.S. Garewal, J. - Kimti Lal @ Jhota is seeking bail under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code in a case of murder. The incident took place outside Shaifali Hotel, Karnal on the night of June 18, 2000. Varinder Gaba was allegedly struck on the face by Kimti Lal with a broken glass bottle in what was probably a drunken brawl. Varinder Gaba was evacuated to P.G.I. Chandigarh where he later died.

2. Kimti Lal was arrested on July 2, 2000, final report against him and his co-accused was filed on September 22, 2000 whereafter all of them were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Five witnesses were examined on July 9, 2001 but on February 28, 2002 a supplementary report under Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code was filed and trial commenced afresh.

3. The facts of the case need not be recounted because bail is being sought only on the ground of the extremely slow progress before the trial Court. When an accused person is taken into custody he has every right to expect that he shall not only by given a fair trial but also a speedy one. Accused persons always have their own version of the incident but unless they have a fair and speedy trial, they are unable to present their defence effectively. Every accused person is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. Expectation of being released on bail, particularly when the trial is being delayed, is something that accused are entitled to entertain.

4. The Supreme Court has in a number of judgments (Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secy., State of Bihar, 1980 SCC (Cri) 23, Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, 1992 SCC (Cri) 93, Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, (1998) 7 SCC 507, Akhtari Bi (Smt.) v. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355 and Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and another, (2001) 3 SCC 1 repeatedly emphasised that long incarceration without trial cannot possibly be regarded reasonable, just or fair so as to be in conformity with the requirement of Article 21. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily. Right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial appeal, revision and retrial.

5. In Abdul Rehman Antulays case (supra) it was recognized that right of speedy trial meant that the period of remand and during conviction, detention should be as short as possible. The accused should not be subjected to unnecessarily or unduly long incarceration prior to his conviction. The worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial should be minimal. Undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend himself, whether on account of death, disappearance or non-availability of witnesses or otherwise.

6. Some of the other factors which deserve to be considered are the abject failure of Courts of Session to observe the basic tenet of criminal trials that once it has begun it must continue from day to day until all witnesses of the prosecution have been examined. Experience has shown that trial Courts have never been able to conduct a day to day trial as mandated by Section 309 Criminal Procedure Code The investigators and the prosecutors must bear a major share of the blame if not the whole blame.

7. Furthermore, denial of bail during trial, which has not been concluded even three and a half years after the occurrence, the delay not being attributable to the defence, also has the effect of denying even temporary release to the petitioner either on parole or on furlough. This is something he can only expect if he is convicted. If that stage had been reached speedily, he would have been able to obtain temporary release under the Haryana Good Conduct Prisoners (Temporary Release) Act, 1988 to sow or harvest his crops or repair his house. As a convict the petitioner would have been required to work in th