- (1.) HEARD.
(2.) PERUSED the record of the Sessions Trial No. 1/93, State vs. Khushia pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. In this case on the written report of P. W. 9 Mohan Lal F. I. R. (Ex. P4), Crime No. 9) dated 6. 9. 1991 was registered at Police Station, Division Sadar Kotwali, Jodadar under Section 332 I. P. C. in the report, it Was alleged that petitioner Khushia has stabbed Harbhajan Singh at the Kila Road of Jodhpur on the intervening night of 5. 9. 91. & 6. 9. 91 and that the said incident was witnessed by Mohan, Khem Chand & Satpal Singh who is the son of deceased Harbhajan Singh. After investigation, challan was filed, against the petitioner alone and the case was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, where all the prosecution witnesses P. W. 1 to P. W. 13 were examined. The learned Sessions Judge recorded the plea of the petitioner under section 313 Cr. P. C. and also recorded the statements of C. W. I, D. W. l,& D. W. 2. Thereafter this case, when it was riped for final arguments was transferred to the file of learned Special Judge, C. B. I. Cases, Jodhpur who on 14. 5. 1993 under sec. 319 Cr. P. C. took cognizance against P. W. 9 Mohan & one Murli for the offences under secs. 302, 302/34, 302/114, 302/120-B l. P. C. and issued non-bailable warrants against them. Thereafter, vide Registrar Raj. High Court's order dated 22. 5. 93, all the Sessions Cases pending before the Special Judge, C. B. I. Cases, Jodhpur have been transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur. It is also not in dispute that co-accused Murli has been released oh bail under section 439 Cr. P. C. by the trial Judge. It is also not in dispute that as against the order dated 15. 593 for taking, cognizance under section 319 Cr. P. C. a petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. was filed in this court which was dismissed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. K. Jain vide his judgment dated 3. 6. 1993 passed in S. B. Cr. Misc. petition No. 270/93. The contention of Shri Mohanani is that petitioner Khushia has been under detention since 6. 9,91 and that as against him the trial was almost complete, but since cognizance against co-accused persons Mohan & Murli has been taken at the fag end of the trial, he shall have to under go the de novo trial for no fault on his part. According to him, the petitioner is entitled for a speedy trial and that;his fundamental right to person as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed. He has further contended that P. W. 9 Mohan Lal was the informant in this case and on his report Ex. P. 4, the case was registered. The alleged eye-witness P. W. 2 Khem Chand has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution story while P. W. 13 Satpal Singh has materially changed the version of the alleged incident, which is inconsistent with the version given in the F. I. R. and that the statement of Mohan Lal, who has now been become co-accused, can not be read against him in evidence and as such offence under section 302 I. P. C. is not made out against the petitioner. So he has prayed that the petitioner should be released on bail The learned Public Prosecutor has hotly contested this petition on the ground that even if the cognizance has been taken against the co-accused persons at the fag end of the trial of this case, still then as per version of Satpal Singh, the petitioner had inflicted knife blows on his father Harbhajan Singh which proved fatal". So the petitioner should not be released on bail. I have given my most anxious and careful consideration to the rival contentions. It is needless to mention that it is no more res-integra that expeditious trial in a criminal case is an integral and essential part of the fundamental light to life to an accused as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Section 319 (4) Cr. P. C. specifically lays down that where the court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1) of Section 319 Cr. P. C. then the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh and the witnesses re-heard. Since the learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance against co-accused Mohan Lal (P. W. 9) and Murli in this case there shall be a de novo trial-
(3.) IN Vaga Vs. State of Rajasthan (1) this Court had directed the Trial Judge to conclude the trial within 3 months. However, the learned trial Judge took cognizance against two more accused persons and ordered for the de novo trial. A petition was filed on behalf of the accused, who was facing trial earlier in the said case. It was held that it was proper to enlarge the accused on bail. In the instant case, I have perused the statement of Mohan Lal, who has now been made an co-accused as well as the statements of alleged eyewitnesses P. W. 2 Khemchand, and P. W. 13 Satpal Singh as also the statements of other prosecution witnesses but without going into the merits and the evi-deaciary value of these witnesses, it stands fairly established that the version mentioned in the F. I. R. Ex. P. 4 has been substantially improved by P. W. 13 Satpal Singh implicating Mohan Lal and Murli with the alleged offence. Thus, the petitioner is under detention since 6. 9. 1991 and for none of his fault he will have to under go another round of the trial in this case. ;