N.L.TIBREWAL, J. - (1.) ALL these accused petitioners are facing trial in Sessions Case No. 118/94, State v. Rikhab Chand and Ors. in the' Court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Kota.
(2.) THE accused -petitioners have filed bail application mainly on the ground of delay in trial. The bail applications of all the accused -petitioners have been rejected on merits earlier. As such, the matter need not be examined on merits. The occurrence had taken place in the month of June 1993 and the Police succeeded in arresting some of the accused persons. Co -accused Gayatri alias Mahendra Kumar and Dhanna Lai were left out by the Police during investigation and charge -sheet was filed against 8 persons leaving the aforesaid two accused. However, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against accused Dhanna Lai and Gayatri alias Mahendra Kumar and issued non -bailable warrants to secure their attendance. As the.se two persons could not be arrested, the learned concerned Magistrate did not commit the case as he was awaiting for their arrest. While deciding third bail application of petitioner Gopal on 27.7.94, this Court directed the committing Court to conclude committal proceedings against those accused who were -arrested and it was made clear that observations made by this Court in the order dated, 27.5.94 while deciding the bail application of Naresh Talaiya, will not come in way of committing other accused persons who have been arrested. Thereafter, the case was for trial and the trial Court framed charges on October 22, 1994 without delay. Thereafter, upto 17.12,94 nine prosecution witnesses have been examined by the trial Court. On 9.12.94 third bail application of Naresh Talaiya was disposed of as under: The only ground on which this bail application has been moved is the delay in trial. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused petitioner is in custody of the last 16 months and he is a young boy. Mr. Tyagi appearing for the complainant, has brought to the notice of this court that the charge itself was framed on October 22, 1994 or so and six witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in a short period. Mr. Tyagi further gives out that all the prosecution witnesses shall be examined within three months. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I grant four months' time to the prosecution from today to examine all the prosecution witnesses. In case, the prosecution witnesses are not examined within specified period without reasonable cause, the petitioner shall be free to move fresh bail application. The bail application is disposed of accordingly.
(3.) THE IVth ball application of Gopal Soni and IIIrd bail application of Rikhab Chand were also dismissed by this court on 2.2.94 in the light of the aforesaid order dated 9.12.94. After 9.12.94, statements of P.W.7. Ajit Rawat, P.W.8 Chiranji Lal and P.W.9 Dhanna Lai were recorded on 16.12.94 and 17.12.94. The witnesses Bal Krishna Pandey who is one of the eye -witness and the informant, could not appear in Court as he was not provided protection by the police and a direction was given by the trial court in compliance to earlier order dated 19.11.94. Hence, next dates were fixed as 11.1.95, 12.1.95 and 13.1.95 for recording remaining prosecution evidence. On 12.1.95 the statement of Bal Krishna Pandey was completed. On 13.1.95 the witnesses Prabhu Dayal Meena and Durga Lal were present but their statements could not be recorded as no posting of a Special Prosecutor in the Court was made and Shri Roop Narain Pareek who was doing additional work of Special Prosecutor of that Court could not appear for his being busy in other Court. In this situation the trial Court had no option but to adjourn the case for the next date and the witnesses were bound down. On the next date of hearing i.e. 10.2.95, the counsel for the complainant stated before the Court that he had obtained permission of the P.P. to examine prosecution witnesses and next date was fixed as 6.3.95. On 6.3.95 statements of PW 10 and PW 11 were recorded and 6.4.95 was fixed for recording statements of the remaining prosecution witnesses. On 6.4.95 and 14.4.95 the Judge was on leave and taking into consideration his further leave 10.5.95 was fixed with consent of all the parties. On 10.5.95 the remaining witnesses do not appear as they were not served upon, hence the learned trial Court issued bailable warrants to secure their attendance and a direction was given to write a D.O. to S.P. Kota to get service effected on the witnesses after taking interest in view of the directions given by the High Court and next, date was fixed as 22.5.95.;