S.C.Mathur - (1.) JANGA Singh accused in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 1988 pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Kheri, arising from crime no. 26 of 1987 of Police station Nighasan, Kheri, has approached this Court for release on bail.
(2.) ACCORDING to the first information report the deceased Jai Prakash son of Mata Prasad was done to death by five persons including the present applicant. All the five assailants have been mentioned in the first information report by name. As many as 42 injuries were inflicted upon the person of the deceased, including one fire-arm wound. The murder is alleged to have been committed in broad day-light at about 4.30 p.m., on 8th May, 1987 when the deceased after alighting from a bus at Dhakharwa crossing was waiting for another bus which would taken him to village Kafara. The place where he was murdered is a market. Four assailants, including the applicant, were carrying swords and one assailant was carrying country-made pistol. Report of the occurrence was lodged at 6.10 p.m., the same day. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is stated in the first information report as nine miles. The report is apparently prompt. The informant claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence. On these facts, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out on merits. Certain technical pleas have been raised by the learned counsel for the applicant which may, however, be considered. The first ground is that the trial is being unduly delayed. It is asserted that the applicant was arrested on 9th May, 1987 and after committal to the court of Sessions the prosecution obtained adjournments on as many as seven occasions viz., on 13th May, 1988, 27th May, 1988, 26th June 1988, 23rd August, 1988, 23rd September, 1988, 2nd November, 1988 and 2nd December, 1988. It appears that the prosecution had to obtain these adjournments as the report of the Chemical Examiner had not been received. The learned counsel for the applicant has cited the following authorities to press claim for bail on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial : 1. Nathu Ram v. State of U. P., 1987 Crimes 564, 2. Sita Ram v. State, 1987 ACrR 35, 3. Prithvi Pal v. State of U. P., 1988 UPCrR 115, 4. Janeshwar v. State 1989 UPCrR 38, and 5. Shree Narain Rai v. State of U. P., 1989 ACrR 116. The learned counsel for the State and the complainant have submitted that the question of delay has to be seen with reference to the facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down. The authorities cited on behalf of the applicant have been distinguished by pointing out that in those cases there was no explanation for the delay while in the present case there is explanation therefor, the same being non-receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner.
(3.) IN Nathu Ram (supra) the accused was arrested in December, 1985 and was committed to the court of Sessions on 12th February, 1986. 13th Match, 1986 was the date fixed for framing charge. The charge was not framed and the case was adjourned without any apparent reason. IN the same manner the case was adjourned twenty times without the charge being framed. It has been observed in the bail order of this court that the case has been dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge in a most perfunctory manner. This was a case of repeated adjournments without any reason whatsoever. In Sita Ram's case (supra) charge-sheet was filed in the court of Magistrate on 18th January, 1986 and between this date and 17th October; 1986 the case was put up before the Magistrate on several occasions and on 31st October, 1986 it was fixed for passing order of commitment to the court of Sessions. Despite twenty adjournments the committal order was not passed without any reason whatsoever. The accused was languishing in jail since 1985 and since there was no explanation at all for repeated adjournments, bail was granted by this Court. This is also a case of unexplained delay.;