V.S. Dave, J. - (1.) This is second application for bail first having been rejected on 17.3.1993 but liberty was given for moving another bail application after the eye witnesses were examined. Petitioners moved this second application for bail after recording the statements of the two witnesses and on the ground of delay. They had moved application before the trial court also which was rejected.
(2.) In this application before me it was argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the accused themselves are delaying the trial and this fact, according to him, was borne out from the order of the learned Judge himself. After perusing the order of the learned trial court I found it necessary to call for the record, hence directed the learned Public Prosecutor to produce the case diary and the record on 3.9.1993. One weeks lime was given. It is now more than 21/2 months but the diary has not been produced before this court for reasons best known. Learned Public Prosecutor expressed his inability to do so. On two of the occasions, i.e. on 7.9.93 and 5.11.93 none was present on behalf of the State. I am therefore handicap to do also. This attitude of the prosecution in not producing the case diary before the Court for 21/2 months cannot be appreciated by any statute. 22 accused persons are in jail for last almost a year and the prosecution is taking the case so lightly. I do not agree with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that the counsel for the accused delayed the proceedings. In fact he discharged the duty which otherwise was against the accused on the learned Public Prosecutor informing that an absconded accused in the case has been apprehended and since the trial has just then begun he could also be committed and trial should have commenced against him also. I do not know as to what happened thereafter as no record is before me. But at the same time I cannot detain the accused any further for the lapses of the prosecution, particularly when out of the two witnesses examined, one has not supported the prosecution and another gives out almost to the case of free fight. In this view of the matter I am inclined to accept this application for bail.
(3.) It is therefore, directed that the accused petitioners Sunder, Mannu Lal, Mangilal, Kanwar Lal, Chhitar, Sheoram, Phoolchand, Harakchand, Gulabchand, Pyara, Harisingh, Gangaram, Mannu son of Dhulilal, Nathu, Phoolchand, Bhura, Bapu, Daula, Harkishan, Chhitar son of Mangilal Chauhan, Kanwarlal, Chhitar son of Harkishan and Shyamlal be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with stipulation to appear before the trial court or as and when they are called upon to do so in this case.;