TIBREWAL, J. - (1.) SPEEDY investigation and trial 'is the core of criminal justice. Constitutional mandate of speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. It is more essential in a case where the accused is in jail. Public interest also demands that criminal trials should be swift and sure; that the guilty shoueld be punished while events are still fresh in the public mind and innocent should be absolved as early as possible. In a series of cases, the Apex Court of the country and this Court have said agaien and again that reasonable speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
(2.) GENERAL Rules (Criminal) 1979 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also contain provisions for disposal of criminal trials with the greatest possible expedition. Rule 42 of GENERAL Rules (Criminal) 1979 provides that sessions cases should be disposed of with the greatest possible expedition. Then Rule-43 states that "once a sessions trial is opened the Sessions Judge shall see that it is disposed of in the same session and not adjourned to next session. The sessions cases shall be taken up day to day untill all the witnesses in attendance have been examined and discharged. The Sessions Judge shall take necessary steps to get the summons served on the witnesses in time and if necessary the Superintendent of Police of the district may be asked to make special efforts to secure the attendance of the witnesses. A sessions trial shall not be adjourned or postponed except in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing. " The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also contains the provisions for expeditious investigation and trial of criminal cases. Section-173 (1) of the Code provides that every investigation of a criminal case under Chapter-XI shall be completed without unnecessary delay. Then, under section-167, the maximum period of detention has been specified during investigation and there is a mandate that on the expiry of the said period (90 days or 60 days, as the case may be), the accused shall be released on bail, if he is prepared and does furnish bail. Section-309 (1) also states that in every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible and on commencement of the examination of witnesses, the same shall be continued day to day till all the witnesses in attendance have been examined. Sub-Sec. (2) provides to record reasons for postponement or adjournment of an enquiry or trial. Proviso of this section further lays down that no Magistrate shall remand the accused-person to custody under this provision for a term exceeding 15 days at a time. As per Section 230, the primary duty to produce the prosecution witnesses in Court for examination lies on the Prosecuting Agency and the Court may, on an- application, by it, issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or other thing. Thus, the mandate of the law is that criminal trials should be concluded with the greatest possible expedition and no adjournment should be granted unless it is considered reasonable by the concerned Court. Further, the trial should be continued day to day if examination of witnesses has begun and to examine all the witnesses in attendance. This is more so if the accused is in custody. For Magistrates there is a statutory direction not to remand an accused person to custody for a term exceeding 15 days at a time. All these provisions are in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution. In the above back-ground the facts may be examined. The petitioner and other co-accused are facing trial under Section 302 or 302/149 IPC in Sessions Case No. 75/91 in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bundi for an offence committed on April 26, 1991. Except the petitioner, all other accused are on bail. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and co-accused Ram Karan fired one gun shot causing injuries to the deceased-Dharampal, who succumbed to the injuries. Ram Karan was released on bail vide order dated October 11,1991 on the ground that police failed to submit charge sheet against him within 90 days.
(3.) A report was obtained from the trial Court about progress of the case and reasons for delay in trial. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bundi vide his communication dated November 11,1994, has intimated to this court that charges were read over to the accused on March 4,1993 and thereafter, statements of Dr. Navin Vijay and Dr. Suresh Chand Sharma were recorded on 19. 3. 94 (i. e. after 12 months of framing charge ). Then, statement of Ram Bharose was recorded on 26. 8. 94 (i. e. after other 6 months ). On September 27,1994 statement of Bablu and on 28. 9. 94 statement of Surendra Kumar were recorded and since then no progress in trial has been made. However, the order sheets, copies of which have been filed before me, show that charges were read over to all accused except one on 4. 3. 93, as he was not present on that day. Thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time i. e. on 23. 3. 93, 8. 4. 93,27. 4. 93,30. 5. 93,11. 6. 93,15. 7. 93,30. 8. 93,1. 12. 93,and lastly on 7. 12. 93. On this date, charges were read over to the remaining accused, meaning thereby that from 4. 3. 93 to 7. 12. 93 i. e. 9 months or so, no effective hearing took place and no effective steps were taken to procure the attendance of the remaining accused to whom the charge was not read over earlier. On 7. 12. 93 the next date was fixed as 14. 1. 94 for recording prosecution evidence. On this date no witness was present. On the next date also, no effective hearing took place and the case was adjourned to 4. 3. 94. On this date, the statements of Dr. Navin Vijay and Dr. Suresh Chand Sharma were recorded. Then on next date i. e. 15. 4. 94, no prosecution witness was present. Again on the next date, no witness was present. Next witness came to be examined on 26. 8. 94. Then, one witness was examined on 27. 9. 94 and one witness was examined on 28. 9. 94. All these proceedings are indicative, without further comments of the fact that no effective steps were taken by the trial court, as well as by the Prosecuting agency to procure the attendance of the witnesses. If the summons were not issued, the responsibility should have been fixed on the erring clerk or the officer. If the orders of the court were not complied with by any Police Officer in getting summons or warrants served upon the witnesses, the Court is not powerless. Under Section 23 of the Police Act, every Police Officer is duty bound to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him by any Competent Authority/court. Section 29 provides penalty for police officer, who is guilty of any violation of his duty or wilful breach of negligence. The accused is in custody for more than 28 months and in such a state of affairs, it would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, if he is allowed to continue in custody for indefinite period without completion of the trial. Therefore, I have no option, but to release the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr. P. C. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner Kajod son of Shri Ram Karan shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance in that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when he is called upon to do so during the course of trial. ;