TIBRIWAL, J. - (1.) THOUGH this is a third bail application under section 439 Cr. P. C. , but it requires serious consideration due to circumstances developed lateron.
(2.) THE petitioner is facing trial in Sessions Case No. 53/90 in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. l, Alwar under sections 498- A and 304-B I. P. C. While rejecting the second bail application this Court had observed as under: - "the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in jail since June, 1990 and not a single witness has been examined so far though the charges were framed on 23/10/1990. It is the duty of the Trial Court to see that no un-due delay is caused in the trial of a Sessions Case, and all efforts should be made that after framing of the charges, the trial is completed within two or three months, which had been the usual practice. I expect from the Trial Court that all efforts shall be made to complete the trial expeditiously in Sessions Cases, not only in this case but in other cases also in which the accused persons are in jail. " There is no dispute that Smt. Sunita committed suicide by swallowing some poisonous pill. The report of the incident was made at Police Station Alwar on March 31, 1990 by Sh. Roshanlal, the father of the deceased. In the report, an allegation was also made about the demand of dowry by the petitioner and the co- accused Smt. Sharda. The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inspite of the earlier order of this Court, no progress has been made in the trial of the case. He submits that the petitioner is in jail since June, 1990 and about fourteen months have passed since then, but practically no progress has been made in the trial. The learned counsel submits that the conduct of the petitioner indicates his innocence, in as much as, when he came to know about the illness of his wife he immediately provided her medical aid and when her condition deteriorated, she was shifted to the hospital by him. The learned counsel argues that a day prior to the incident, the petitioner had taken the deceased to her parent's house on the festival of 'gangor' and they had gone on a bi-cycle. According to the learned counsel, in such cases it has become the fashion and practice to make false accusation of the demand of dowry, though in the community of the petitioner no such demand is made on the part of bridegroom. The learned counsel submits that in fact, in Mali community, the bridegroom has to pay money to the bride's father for the marriage of his daughter. I would not like to make any comment on the merits of the case, but there are some striking features which are alarming and I would like to highlight the same in this order. The manner in which the trial of the present case has proceeded is not only shocking and painful, but it also demonstrates slackness and indifference towards the duties by the Presiding Officers.
(3.) SOME important dates relevant for the decision of this petition and various relevant order-sheets from the file of the trial court may be referred. The case was registered at Police Station Alwar on March 31, 1990. The police, after completion of the investigation, submitted a charge sheet in the month of July, 1990. Then, the case was committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the record of the case was received in the court of Sessions Judge on Oct. 8, 1990. The learned Sessions Judge transferred the case to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. l, Alwar and fixed the next date as 23rd Oct. 1990. On 23rd Oct. 1990, the Trial Judge framed charges against the petitioner and the co-accused Smt. Sharda. Thereafter, he fixed the next date as January 9 and 10, 1991 for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses. On Jan. 9, 1991 no prosecution witness was present, as such, the case was adjourned to Jan. 10, 1991. On Jan. 10, 1991 also no prosecution witness was present and the learned Judge fixed the next date as 12th and 13. 03. 1991, for recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses. On 12th and 13. 03. 1991, it appears that some witnesses were present, but the Judge did not record their statements on a lame excuse that he was under transfer orders. The next date was fixed as April 30, 1991. On April 30, 1991, three prosecution witnesses were present, but their statements could not be recorded as the accused-petitioner was not produced in court by the jail authorities on the ground of his being sent to hospital for treatment. Consequently, the next date was fixed as July 12, 1991,on July 12, 1991 statement of only one witness was recorded and the next date has been fixed as Aug. 22, 1991 for recording the statements of other witnesses. It is really disturbing that the trial courts are so unaware of liberties of the citizens. Now, it is a settled proposition of law that expeditious criminal trial is a fundamental right of the accused, especially when he is in jail. No accused can be kept in jail for un-certain period, as a under trial prisoner, especially when there is no fault on his part. In criminal cases in which the accused is in jail, it is the duty of the Presiding Officer to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible and to record the statements of the prosecution witnesses without any delay, rather day to day and all efforts are to be made through the police agency to secure the attendance of the witnesses on the date fixed for recording their statements. It is also his duty not to grant adjournment unless it is found extremely necessary. Even if the case has to be adjourned, then the next dale should not be after a long period. ;