Amar Dutt, J. - (1.) Petitioner Sandeep Ohri has filed the present petition for grant of bail pending trial on the ground that the witnesses examined by the prosecution uptil date including PW-11 Lakh winder Singh, before whom he is stated to have made an extra judicial confession and PW-13 Damandeep Singh Gill, before whom his co-accused Agya Pal is alleged to have confessed his guilt have not supported the prosecution version. Apart from this, it has been averred that as the trial Court has already taken over two years, therefore, according to the principles laid down in Raj Deo Sharma v. The State of Bihar, JT 1999 (7) S.C. 317 , The Session Judge should have closed the evidence which too would entitle him to bail because no material circumstance is available on the file which incriminates him in the commission of the offence. It Was also averred that since the trial is likely to be protracted for a long time as the C.B.I. has moved an application for examination of two of the witnesses, namely, Hamek Singh Sahota and Rajwant Kaur on Commission, in view of this also it is a fit case in which he should be granted bail.
(2.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission made before me. In Raj Deo Sharmas case (supra) the Apex court has clearly indicated the purport of the judgment as under:- "The whole idea was to speed up the trial in criminal cases to prevent the prosecution from becoming a persecution of the person arrayed in a criminal trial. No trial can be allowed to prolong indefinitely due to the lethargy of the prosecuting agency or the State machinery and that is the raison deter in prescribing the time frame within which prosecution evidence must be closed".
(3.) Their Lordships of the Apex Court further go on to explain that:- "If the inability for completing prosecution evidence was attributable to the conduct of the accused, the Court is not obliged to close the prosecution evidence at all. If the trial gets postponed on account of pendency of any appeal or revision filed against any interim order even though there was no order of stay it is open to the trial Court to reckon that period also". Their Lordships further held that : "Even if the prosecution evidence is closed in compliance with the directions contained in Rajdeo Sharma it is still open to the prosecution to invoke the powers of the Court under Section 311 of the Code. We make it clear that if evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case it is the duty of the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person".;