- (1.) V. N. Mehrotra J. This is second bail application by the applicant Vinod Kumar in case Crime No. 400 of 1991, under Sections 498-A/304-B, I. P. C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Muradnagar district Ghaziabad. The first bail application was rejected by me on merits on 24-7-1992.
(2.) THE present application has been pressed on the ground that though the applicant is in Jail since October, 1991 even the charge has not been framed in the trial so far. I have considered the arguments by the learned counsel and have perused the copies of the order sheet placed before me. These copies indicate that the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Magistrate con cerned vide his order dated 31-1-1992. The trial was transferred to the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad by an order dated 16-3-1992 by the Sessions Judge. From 16-3- 1992 up to 12-3-1993, as will be apparent from the copies of the order sheet, the case has been adjourned on as many as 13 occasions on the applications moved on behalf of co-accused Km, Asha and Smt. Sukhbiri. It appears that for mainly this reason, the charges could not be framed against the accused persons. It is obvious that the learned Addi tional Sessions Judge has been too liberal in granting adjournments to the accused persons. It appears that the trial has been adjourned merely on the asking, which was not proper. Any how, there does not appear to any fault on the part of the prosecution in delaying the hearing of the trial. Tae question of grant of bail on the ground of delay in concluding the trial came up for decision in this court in the case Pappu alias Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of U P. (1991 ACr R 476 ). In that case, the following obser vations were made : "what importance should be given to the question of delay will again depend upon many factors but primarily upon quantum and the question as to who is responsible for delay in the proceedings of the case, ff the prosecuting agency itself is responsible for the delay its benefit has to be given to the accused. If the delay has occurred on account of manipulations or tactics adopted by the accused like seeking frequent adjournments, moving frivolous appli cations, asking for copies of non-essential documents, absence of a co-accused of a case necessitating adjournment or any other reason, it will not entitle him to claim bail on this ground as no one can take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that one accused should not suffer on account of wrong committed by another accused but in criminal case at times the accused have either shar ed the same common intention or the same common object at the time of commission of the crime and they are not strangers to each other. The practice of one of the accused absenting on a date fixed for getting the case adjourned is not unknown. " It was also observed that the court has to examine the totality of circumstances to judge whether in a given case, there has been delay in conclusion of the trial, and if so, who is responsible for the same.
(3.) A number of decisions by the Supreme Court were considered in this case. These cases included Hussainara Khatoon cases, AIR 1979 SC 1360 and AIR 1979 SC 1369,1 am in respectful agreement with the observations made by their Lordships in Pappu alias Ashok Kumar Singh's case (supra ). On a consideration of the entire material placed before me, I am of the view that no sufficient ground for grant of bail has been made out in the present case and it cannot be said that the prosecution is to be blamed for delay in holding the trial. The bail application is rejected. The 1st Addi tional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, in whose court the trial (S. T. No. 51 of 1992-State v. Manoj and others) is pending, shall try to expedite the hearing of the trial and shall not grant unnecessary adjournments in the manner in which he has been granting the same in this case. The copy of this order be sent to the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad immediately. Bail application dismissed. .;