Sunderiya vs State of M. P. - 1990 Supreme(MP) 561

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : J.L. Jain.
For the Respondent: Desai.

Headnote:(1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 173 – charge – sheet – cannot be filed in piecemeal – it should be filed with all reports and articles.
       (2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 439 – delay in committal proceeding due to non – filing of expert report – accused is entitled to bail.
        Short Note
       1. Although charge – sheet has been filed on 3.7.1990, the case is not yet committed for want of report from the State Forensic Science Laboratory. A direction was made to the State to produce the complete report as regards non – production of articles seized during investigation and the report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory. It does not stand to reason as to why the articles seized are not produced before the Committal Court. Complete investigation is not piecemeal filing of charge – sheet, it postulates filing of all documents and reports, including that of the Chemical Examiner or the Forensic Science Laboratory. It cannot be made a matter of practice to postpone filing of such reports along with the charge – sheet. In an exceptional case some margin can be made, but what is being noticed is that in almost every case that has come up before this Court, there is a deplorable practice obtaining at the lower level, where filing of reports from the Chemical Examiner and the Forensic Science Laboratory is postponed to a convenient date, which at times runs into months and months till at least the accused is exhausted of his patience and approaches this Court for grant of bail on the ground of delay. The present petition is a typical example of such delay. Merits apart, the petitioner claims bail on the ground of delay in trial. Needless to add that it has now been recognised to be a fundamental right of an accused. A large number of cases of this nature have been decided by this Court, to cite one Kaniram vs. State, Misc. Cr. C. No. 1233/90, decided on 30.8.1990. Prospects of an early trial in the Sessions Division of Alirajpur are quite weak and blurred. Hundreds of Sessions trials are pending and there is no chance of trial in this case at an early date, particularly because the report from the FSL as regards staining of blood on the weapons alleged to have been used is yet to be filed. Of course, it is for the prosecution to see the evidentiary value of such reports, in case, such Chemical Examiner's report or report from FSL as regards blood stained weapons, are filed. A catena of cases has by now developed on this point, but it appears that the investigating and prosecuting agency has not yet headed to those cases and still insist on postponement of filing of such reports, inevitably delaying the trial. It is seldom that fate of criminal prosecution turns or hinges on such reports, yet prosecution insists on late filing of such reports. Well, it is up to the State, but the accused cannot be detained.
       2. In the circumstances, the accused – applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 5,000/ – (Rupees five thousand) with surety in like amount. Appeal allowed.