ISRANI, J. - (1.) HEARD. This is third bail application of the accused-petitioner Shyam Lal who is charged to have committed offence under Section 307 IPC
(2.) IT is submitted by Shri P. R. Singh Rajawat, learned counsel that while dismissing the bail application on 5. 9. 1990, it was directed by this Court that, trial should be expedited and in the first instance statements of eye-witnesses be recorded within a period of 3 months from today. IT is submitted that even though about 6 months have passed away, the statements could not be recorded. The learned counsel has read out the order sheet of the various dates fixed after the above mentioned order in the trial court. It is submitted by Shri Saxena, learned Public Prosecutor that even though eye-witnesses were present twice, they could not be examined once, on account of absence of the lawyer of the petitioner, and on other occasion due to absence one of the co- accused person. It is, therefore, pointed out that it cannot be said that the trial court has not made effort to examine the eye- witnesses. I have heard both the parties. The petitioner is in custody since 21. 5. 90. The charge was framed on September 12, 1990. No witnesses were present on subsequent two days fixed in the month of October, 1990. Thereafter, the case adjourned on 26. 11. 90 as the lawyer of the petitioner had gone out of station. However, on the next date i. e. 27. 11. 90 none of the eye-witnesses were present who had otherwise attended Court on 26. 11. 90. On 2. 1. 1991 the case could not proceed since one of the co-accused person was absent even though eye-witnesses were present. Thereafter no eye-witness has been examined till 1. 2. 1991. From the above order-sheets, it is evident that except once when the lawyer of the petitioner had gone out of station, he cannot be said to have been at fault. He is remained in custody/jail nearly for one year. Time & again it has been held by this Court that when the trial is delayed for long time and the petitioner is not at fault, in certain circumstances like the present one, he is entitled to bail. In the facts & circumstances, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
(3.) IT is, therefore, ordered that accused petitioner Shyam Lal s/o Shri Banshi Lal be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear in that court as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against him in this case. .;