MOHINI KAPUR, J. - (1.) AMAR Singh, Mohar Singh, Chakki and Ganpati have moved this second bail applications. The first bail applications were dismissed on 20th July, 1988 and 1st April, 1988. Some of the accused in the case namely Kalyan, Gendipal and Ranveer have been released on bail. Two of them on account of their advanced age and the third one on account of the fact that he has been attributed a gun while the deceased has not received any injury by gun shot.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners have been in custody for about 14-15 months but no progress has been made in the case as it was not committed by the Munsif till 27. 3. 89 and 10 4. 89. THE order sheets of the case have been read which shows that the papers have not been supplied to two accused, articles necessary to be exhibited in the case have not been produced and the report of the FSL has not been received. THE learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that after this date the case has been committed when the Magistrate received a letter from this court asking the explanation about the delay in the case. The other contention is that the petitioner Amar Singh has been attributed with the allegation that he cought hold of the deceased and had no weapon in his hand while other petitioners are said to be armed with sharp edged weapons but the deceased had received lacerated injuries which could not have been caused by them. On this basis it is argued that their case is not different from that of Mohar Singh. At this stage, I would not like to discuss the case on merits. This is a case where the deceased Padam Singh received several injuries and lateron he was placed on the railway track and was ran over by a train. There are eye witnesses who have deposed about the same. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, it can be said that the petitioners, against whom, there is evidence of eye witnesses, cannot be released on bail. The main question is about the delay in the trial of the case. The incident is of 14. 9. 87 and the accused were arrested in January or February 1988 but no progress has been made thereafter. The case has been committed to the court of Sessions only in April, 1989. The learned Magistrate was asked to submit an explanation about the delay but no reply has been received from him. The case cannot be expected to be decided at an early date. It is only, on account of long period for which the petitioners have remained in custody that I am constrained to grant bail to them. The delay in committal of the case is a serious matter and it is considered proper to bring it into the notice of the registry so that efforts may be made to find out whether this is the solitary case of the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur or it is his general practice. I would suggest that the District Judge may be asked to conduct an inspection and send a report.
(3.) IT is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioners Amar Singh, Mohar Singh, Chakki and Ganpati be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance before that court on all dates of hearing till the trial lasts with the further conditions: (a) that the sureties shall be the persons having immovable property besides agricultural land within the jurisdiction of the trial court; and (b) that the petitioners Mohar Singh, Chakki, and Ganpati shall furnish their address duly verified by the police station under whose jurisdiction they are residing. .;