S.I.Jafri - (1.) THIS is the third application on behalf of the applicant Nathu for bail charged under section 302/307 IPC Crime no. 563 of 1985, Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur.
(2.) ON earlier two occasions, the bail application had been rejected on merits. Alongwith the instant third bail application, a certified copy of the entire order sheet of the court of Sessions has been filed which has been accepted and taken on record. I have perused the order sheet which discloses that the applicant/accused had been taken into custody as far back as in December 1985. Thereafter, he was committed to the court of Sessions alongwith other co-accused to stand trial on 12-2-1986. ON 26-2-1986, the learned Sessions Judge deferred the case to 13-3-1986 for framing of charges and subsequent to it, as many as 20 dates have been fixed for framing of charges against the applicant by the learned Sessions Judge but framing of charges is yet to materialise. I have heared Sri M. Islam, Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant and also the learned counsel for the State at a considerable length. There is nothing more painful than to observe that after committal proceedings, the instant case has been deferred on 20 dates for framing of charges, but the charges are yet to be framed. The order sheet indicates to next date fixed for framing of charges as 16th May 1987. I feel, the way, this case has been dealt with, speaks volumes of the apathy of the Court below and from the materials on record, it is crystal clear that this case has so far been dealt with in a most perfunctory and slip shod manner. It rather seems that the learned Sessions Judge did not realise the pains, agony and anguish, the accused was passing through in the jail. In the absence of speedy trial of an accused, the continuance of the accused in jail is nothing but an instance of making him to undergo punishment before trial. Though there is hardly any provision for speedy trial in our Constitution but taking into consideration the broad view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as interpreted by Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1978 SC page 597 to the effect that Article 21 of the Constitution conferred a fundamental right upon every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with due procedure prescribed under law and it is not enough to constitute compliance with the requirements of that Article that some semblance of a procedure should be prescribed by law but that procedure should be reasonable, fair and just, if a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair and just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental rights under Article 21 and he would be entitled to enforce such fundamental right and secure his release.
(3.) IN the instant case the shocking apathy of the court below towards speedy trial of the applicant verging on the infringement of his legal and constitutional rights is increasingly disconcerting and reveals a dismal state of affairs at the lower level. A bounden duty is cast on the trial court to ascertain that the cases of the under trials who are languishing in jail, should be concluded as quickly as possible. Learned Judges must bear in mind that the delay in disposal of trial amounts to trampling upon the legal and constitutional rights of an accused and refusal of the court to act with alacrity in such a situation would be punishing an accused before he is tried and a finding of guilt or sentence is arrived at. In the light of the above discussions, and also in view of the facts and circumttances I am left with no other option but to enlarge the applicant on bail.;