R.C. Lahoti, J.

1. The applicant, one of the two, facing a trial on charges under Section 302/34 I.P.C and Section 25-B of the Arms Act, has come up to this Court seeking bail.

2. As borne out from the bail petition and the submissions made at the Bar, prayer for bail is pressed mainly on the ground that the applicant has been in custody since 15-9-1987, and the trial has not concluded so far, though a period of 15 months has elapsed.

3. The prayer was vehemently opposed on behalf of the State, submitting that the prosecution is not to blame for the delay, but a major contribution has been made by the accused themselves in delaying the trial. In view of this submission, the record of the trial Court was called for and examined.

4. The proceedings before the committing Court show that the challan was filed on 16-11-1987. The case was adjourned on 27-11-1987, because the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 24-12-1987, the Court was closed on account of a holiday. On 29-12-1987 and 6-1-1988, the hearing had to be adjourned, because the record was requisitioned by the Sessions Court while hearing the bail application filed by the applicant. On 20-1-1988, as soon as the record was received from the Sessions Court, an order of committal was passed.

5. Before the Sessions Court, on 11-2-1988, the accused prayed for an adjournment, because they wanted to engage a counsel. On 2-3-1988, the lawyers were on general strike. On 15-4-1988, the accused could not be produced in the Court, because Police force was not available. On 29-4-1988, for the first time, the accused submitted that they were not in a position to engage a counsel as no one of their family had come up to assist them. Accordingly, the Court appointed an amicus curiae. On 6-5-1988 and 7-5-1988, one of the accused could not be produced from Jail, being indisposed. On 6-6-1988, Presiding Officer was on leave. On 22-6-1988, the accused were not produced for want of Police force. On 30-6-1988, accused Rakesh was reported to be sick while on 8-7-1988, the accused Daini alias Raju was reported to be sick. On 14-7-1988, the charges were framed and thereafter, the prosecution filed a programme according to which, the trial commenced on 14-10-1988. An eye-witness was examined, but the defence counsel prayed for an adjournment on the ground that he would like to cross-examine all the eye-witnesses together. On 15-10-1988, six witnesses including the uncross-examined eye-witness were present in the Court and if only the witnesses would have been examined, a major part of the trial would have been over. But the defence counsel prayed that he was busy appearing before High Court but without stating any case in which he was busy, and hence, the case had to be adjourned. Incidentally, it may be stated that 15-10-1988 was fixed for trial of the case from much before and the hearing had been adjourned to this day just on the previous day in the presence of defence counsel, still the defence was not ready to co-operate in the trial.

6. On the adjourned dates of hearing, the witnesses were not present. The case was then taken up on 22-12-1988, on which dated, one witness was examined. On 25-1-1989, about five witnesses were present, but the Presiding Officer was on leave. Now the case stands posted for trial on 13-2-1989 and 14-2-1989.

7. A number of authorities have been cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant to show that an expeditious trial is the fundamental right of the accused and delay would entitle the accused to the grant of bail. There cannot be a quarrel with the proposition. The authorities need not be referred for the simple and singular reason that none of them contemplates a situation where the Court may have granted the bail, though the prosecution was not to blame for delay at the trial or a situation where the accused himself may have been responsible either wholly or partially for causing the delay. It is writ large on the record of the case that the prosecution has no