( 1. ) SHRI B. L. Bhargava, counsel for the applicant and Shri M. N. Pendharkar, learned panel lawyer for the State are heard on the question of grant of bail.

( 2. ) THE state has no right to oppose the hail application in view of the fact that the applicants have to wait for commencement of the trial up to 1st Jan. , 1979. If the State cannot provide for adequate machinery for dispensing justice quickly, the State cannot be heard to say that the applicants should be kept in custody without trial up to such a long time. The remedy can be by way of increasing the strength of Judges competent to try such cases, but certainly, paucity of the time with the existing judicial machinery to try the accused expeditiously can be no ground for refusal of the bail. In such cases as a general rule bails should be granted. It is against all concepts of human liberty that in such circumstances the applicants should be refused bail. For inability of the Court, the under-trial accused persons should not be and cannot be permitted to be kept in judicial custody.

( 3. ) ACCORDINGLY, I deem it fit to direct that the applicants be released on bail, if the applicants furnish solvent security to the satisfaction of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna, for an amount of Rs. 10,000/each and enter into a personal recognizance (bond) of like amount.

( 4. ) THE applicants will appear before the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Guna on 1-1-1979 and also on such other dates as may be fixed for the purpose by him or any other Court who happened to try the case.

( 5. ) BEFORE parting with the other, it is being clarified that it is expected of the learned Judges to grant bail in similar circumstances, so that rushing of the applicants to this Court may not be necessitated every now and then. ( 6. ) A certified copy of the order be given today to the counsel for the applicant on payment of necessary charges.