- (1.) On 14.12.2015, while entertaining the instant petition, this Court passed the following order : "Learned senior counsel for the petitioner states, that the petitioner has been in jail for a period of 14 years, and that out of 96 witnesses cited, only six have been examined thus far." A perusal of the above order would reveal, that the petitioner, by 2015, had been in incarceration as an undertrial for a period of 14 years. It also reveals, that in the entire period only 6 witnesses had been examined out of 96 prosecution witnesses.
(2.) On 09.09.2016, just about two years after having entertained this petition, this Court passed the following motion Bench order : "On the last date of hearing, i.e., on 9.8.2016, we were informed, that only 6 of the prosecution witnesses have been examined. It is now brought to our notice, that 20 of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to examine the material prosecution witnesses at the earliest. The trial court is requested to ensure, that the material prosecution witnesses are examined, under all circumstances, within six months from today. Post for hearing after six months." The order extracted hereinabove, passed in September, 2016, reveals, that this Court had requested the trial court to examine all material prosecution witnesses expeditiously. In fact, a time-line of six months was given by this Court to the trial court.
(3.) Another factual position, which is relevant to the present controversy, is depicted in the synopsis filed by the petitioner, i.e., that at the time of filing of this petition, out of 11 criminal cases filed against the petitioner, he had been acquitted in 9 cases. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner has been acquitted in the 10th case as well, and that, presently only one case is pending against the petitioner wherein through the instant petition, the petitioner is claiming concession of bail. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner's co-accused had been released on bail in the year 2001. The above stated facts have not been controverted by the learned counsel representing respondent-State.;