S.C. Mital, J. - (1.) The petitioner is facing trial it/ss. 302, 307, 323, 324, 147, 148 r/w 149 & 120-B IPC alongwith other accused persons in the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Cases & Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 57/98. The petitioner moved first bail petition which was decided on 13.11.1998. The first bail petition was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner and a direction was sought that the trial may be expedited. Therefore, this Court dismissed the bail petition and gave direction to the trial Court to complete the trial as far as practicable within three months. Thereafter when the trial could not he over within three months, the learned Sessions Judge sought to extend time which was further extended by six months.
(2.) Now the second bail petition has been moved by the petitioner on the ground that he is in custody since 2.5.1996 and during the 31/2 years only eight witnesses have been examined out of the list of 33 witnesses despite the directions given by this Court to expedite the trial. Therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail only on this ground because the petitioner cannot be subjected to long incarceration without progressing the trial. The arguments were heard and a report was also sought from the SHO of the concerned Police Station. It has been revealed that only eight witnesses have been examined in the Court one witness each on 24.7.1998, 1.9.1998, 29.1.1999, 10.3.1999, 10.8.1999 and 10.9.1999. Two witnesses were examined on 10.2.1999. Thereafter, there is no further progress in the case and no witness has been examined since 10.9.1999. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the summons were issued which were served and witnesses did not appear. The police also got served the bailable warrants issued by the Court. Even then the witnesses did not appear in the Court and therefore the witnesses could not be examined. In these circumstances, the prosecution is not responsible in any manner for the delay in trial so far. The learned Public Prosecutor has cited R.D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P. & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 696 , R.D. Upadhyay v. State of A.P. & Ors., 1998 JT (6) 486 , Narasindia Murthy v. The State by Gouribidanur Police, 1991 Cr.L.J. 3205 & Hussainara Khatoon &Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna,1980 SCC (Cr1.) 40 . It is argued that even if the trial has not been completed within the time as directed by the Court even then the accused is not entitled for bail on this ground alone because the nature of the case and the facts and circumstances of the case have to be considered alongwith the delay. It is further argued that in this case two persons have been killed and there are serious allegations and in the over all facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner should not be released on bail.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred in his support Ruldu Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 RCC (Suppl.) 43 , Munna alias Kamta Prasad & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1986 (3) Crimes 429 , Manna alias Mahendra v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 (2) RLW 51 , Jawahar Singh v. State of Raj., 1989 RCS 180 , Babu & Anr. v. State of Raj., 1989 RCS 517 , Gyan Prakash alias Gyan Chand v. State of Raj., 1990 WLN 278 & Sunil K. Sinha v. State of Bihar, 1998 SCC (Cr1.) 1366 . It is vehemently contended that whenever there is unreasonable delay in trial, it is a very relevant consideration because the under trial accused cannot be put to long incarceration. In this case the petitioner is in judicial custody since 2.5.1996 and only eight witnesses have been examined which shows that the trial is likely to consume more time. There is no material to show that the accused is placing any hindrance in trial.;