( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Criminal Case No. 2700 of 86 (Bhagwandas v. State of Madhya Pradesh) and Misc. Criminal Case No. 2172 of 86 (Nankun and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh ).

( 2 ) BY these petitions under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) the applicants accused are seeking their release on bail.

( 3 ) THESE bail petitions involve important questions of law of general public importance as to whether the provision of Sections 167, 209, 215, to 235, 309 and 317 of the Code ensure speedy trial and in failure to conclude trial speedily within a reasonable time, does Article 21 of the Constitution of India, extend protection to under-trial prisoner in granting benefit of bail during trial.

( 4 ) THE material facts of these three bail petitions are as under:

(a) In Misc. Criminal Case No. 2073 of 86 the applicants were arrested on 28-7-1985 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302/24. I. P. C. but more than a year has passed, the trial has not been completed as yet.

(b) Similarly, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 21n of 1986 the applicants were arrested on 12-9- 1985 under Sections 302/149, 147, 148, 341, 441, 427 and 323, I. P. C. It is alleged that more than a year has elapsed, but the trial has not yet been completed.

(c) In Misc. Criminal Case No. 2786 of 86, the application for bail was received from Jail. The applicant was arrested for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 302, I. P. C. on 3-1- 1984, but his trial has also not been completed as yet.

( 5 ) THUS, in all these aforesaid three cases the applicants have been in custody for more than a year and their respective trial is still pending.

( 6 ) SHRI Surendra Singh with Shri Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants accused and Shri S. C. Datt and Shri Hira Singh Chouhan, learned Amicus Curiae, supporting the case of the applicants-accused argued that in case of delayed trial, where even after a lapse of one year from the date of the arrest of the accused, no progress has not been shown in the trial, the accused persons deserve to be released on bail, pending trial. On the other hand, Shri U. K. Sharma, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State non applicant opposing the prayer for releasing the applicants on bail, argued that there is no provision in the Code so as to warrant to conclude the Sessions trial within a stipulated period, failing which due to delayed trial the accused persons be released on bail.

( 7 ) AFTER having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Amicus Curiae, I have formed the opinion that on the ground of delayed trial, if accused person on his part has not created any hindrances in the progress and conclusion of the trial, he deserves to be released on bail.

( 8 ) IN this regard the relevant provisions of the Code i. e. , Sections 197, 209, 225 to 234, 309 and 317 which speak of speedy investigation in the crime, as well as, conducting the trial expeditiously, have to be appreciated in the context of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which contemplates: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Here, we are concerned with the concept of personal liberty of a person who is accused of an offence and being proceeded with in a Court of law and whose personal liberty is abs cured due to his detention in custody pending trial, especially where the trial is being dragged for no fault of the accused.

( 9 ) PROVISION of sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code has brought a revolutionary change in imparting criminal justice speedily, inasmuch as, an embargo has been put on the investigating agency to complete the investigation of the alleged crime within the stipulated time, i. e. , 90 days and 60 days, as the case may be, failing which if the charge-sheet is no