ORDER.- Sri V. Rajagopal Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that there is no legal, moral or ethical justification to detain the petitioner, who is A-2 in Sessions Case No. 35 of 1982 on the file of the Sessions Court, Cuddapah, arising out of the Crime No. 5 of 1981 of Chitwal Police Station, Rajampet taluk in the Sub-Jail for the last one year and four months without trial though the Supreme Court repeatedly deprecated the detention of an accused in Sessions cases without trial for a period which exceeds a reasonable period and hence the petitioner herein should be released on bail. 2. Opposing this petition, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that there are no laches on the part of the State in this case, as investigation was completed within the period prescribed under section 167, Criminal Procedure Code, and a charge-sheet was filed immediately after the investigation and the case was committed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate to the Sessions Court on 3rd April, 1982, and the same was numbered as Sessions Case No. 35 of 1982 and posted to 12th July, 1982, and finally adjourned to 19th July, 1982, for trial and thus the trial of the petitioner is being taken up within three months from the date of the committal order. He further submits that when once the charge-sheet was filed within the reasonable time, the State cannot be found fault with for the delay caused in the trial of the case, since the trial is a matter concerned with the Court and the State has nothing to do with it and because the trial was not taken up immediately after the case was committed to the Sessions Court, the delay of the trial does not provide the ground for the accused to claim for the grant of bail as of right especially when he is involved in a murder case and when it is attributed that he caused the fatal blow. 3. It would be agonising to hear from the Counsel appearing for the accused that in several murder cases the accused are rotting in sub-jails without trial for years together. It is now well recognised that speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. 3. It would be agonising to hear from the Counsel appearing for the accused that in several murder cases the accused are rotting in sub-jails without trial for years together. It is now well recognised that speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. No one should, therefore, be allowed to be confined in jail for more than a reasonable period of time. The Magistrate is given the power under section 167, Criminal Procedure Code, not to extend the judicial remand beyond 90 days in cases of offences punishable with imprisonment for life or for a term of not less than 10 years and to release the accused on bail if the investigation is not completed within 90 days and the Magistrate can do so suo motu even if the accused does not file an application for bail. If the investigation is completed within 90 days and if the application filed by the accused before the commencement of the investigation or after the charge-sheet is filed is dismissed on the ground that the fatal injuries are attributable to the accused, who filed the bail application the accused can be detained in the Sub-Jail till the trial is taken up. But if the accused are confined in jail for more than a reasonable period of time, the Supreme Court gave the power to Sessions Courts, and the High Courts to release such accused on bail subject to usual terms and conditions. ( Vide Kadra Pehadiya v. State of Bihar1 ). 4. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court felt very much perturbed on the plight of the unfortunate under-trial prisoners who were detained for more than a reasonable period without trial in Hussainara Khatoon v. Stale of Bihar1 and deprecated such under-trial detentions by observing: " We fail to see what moral or ethical justification could the State have to detain these unfortunate persons for such unreasonably long periods of time without trial. " Their Lordships once again expressed their agony with mixed feelings of anxiety and wrath in Kadra Pehadiya v.State of Bihar2 in these words. " We fail to understand why our justice system has become so dehumanised that lawyers and judges do not feel a sense of revolt at caging people in jail for years without trial.‘ 5. " Their Lordships once again expressed their agony with mixed feelings of anxiety and wrath in Kadra Pehadiya v.State of Bihar2 in these words. " We fail to understand why our justice system has become so dehumanised that lawyers and judges do not feel a sense of revolt at caging people in jail for years without trial.‘ 5. These observations of the Supreme Court should be respected as eye-openers to the criminal Courts. With these exhortations, the Supreme Courts alerted the Magistrate, the Sessions Judges and the High Courts to realise that the speedy trial is the fundamental right of the accused and it is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution and exhorted the Sessions Courts and the High Courts to protect this fundamental right of the accused whenever and wherever this right of the accused is violated. 6. The real difficulty lies with the Sessions Courts themselves when they the burdened with the pendency of number of Sessions Cases. The Sessions Judges take up the trials of Sessions cases one after another as per the schedule given by them. Where there are number of Sessions Cases pending on the file of the Sessions Judges as on the file of the Principal and Additional Sessions Judges’ Court, Cuddapah, the Assistant Sessions Judge's Courts, Cuddapah, and the Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Proddatur, there will be delay in the trial of the Sessions Cases and the problem of detention of the accused in the Sub-Jails without trial unreasonably for longer period arises. 7. The question is when can the trial of a Sessions Case be said to be pending beyond a reasonable period of time? 8. The Supreme Court held in Kadra Pehadiya v. State of Bihar1 that no one should be allowed to be confined in Sub-Jail without trial for more than a reasonable time which should not exceed ones year for a sessions case. From this it is clear that the reasonable time within which a Sessions trial has to be taken up is one year from the date of the receipt of the committal order. But in Cuddapah and Kurnool Districts, the Sessions Courts are flooded with a number of committal orders and the Sessions Judges register them as Sessions Cases giving the dates when their trials will be taken up. But in Cuddapah and Kurnool Districts, the Sessions Courts are flooded with a number of committal orders and the Sessions Judges register them as Sessions Cases giving the dates when their trials will be taken up. Under those circumstances, it is difficult for the Sessions Judges to take up the trials of some of the Sessions Cases without delay and the trials of those Sessions Case will have to be taken up even after the period ranging from six months to one or two years. 9. But the difficulties of the Sessions Judges should not be detrimental to the interests of the accused resulting in the violation of his fundamental right of speedy trial given to him by Article 21 of the Constitution. When the accused has got the right of speedy trial and he should not be detained in Sub-Jail without trial for a period exceeding one year from the date of the receipt of the committal order by the Sessions Court from the Committal Court, the Sessions Judge is empowered as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Kadra Pehadiya v. State of Bihar1 to grant bail to such under-trial prisoners, of course subject to such terms and conditions as the Sessions Judge imposes. Further in view of the number of committal orders received in his Court from the Committal Courts, the Sessions Judge will have a clear picture as to when the trials of the several Sessions Cases will be taken up since he gives the dates of the postings of their trials. He should, therefore, write to the High Court before-hand and the High Court in its turn can insist upon the Government to provide the necessary Additional Sessions Courts in the District. It is, thus, imperative on the part of the Government to establish more Additional Sessions Courts to facilitate speedy trials and to void the problems of the under-trial prisoners and to comply with the mandate given by the Supreme Court. If more Sessions Courts are not established where there is necessity, then the Sessions Judges have no other alternative than to release such under-trial prisoners, who are rotting in the sub-jails without trial for more than a reasonable period, which exceeds one year from the date of the receipt of the committal order. 10. If more Sessions Courts are not established where there is necessity, then the Sessions Judges have no other alternative than to release such under-trial prisoners, who are rotting in the sub-jails without trial for more than a reasonable period, which exceeds one year from the date of the receipt of the committal order. 10. The petitioner in this case has been in the sub-jail for the last one year and four months from the date of his arrest after the issuance of the first information report as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, since the bail application filed by him was dismissed by the Sessions Court as well as the High Court. But for the purpose of computing the period whether he has been in sub-jail without trial for a period exceeding one year, the period of one year has to be calculated from the date of the receipt of the order of the committal court as stated above. If that be so, the petitioner has not completed one year as an under-trial prisoner after the case was committed to Sessions Court. Hence the above cited ruling of the Supreme Court in Kadra Pehadiya v. State of Bihar1 does not apply to the case of fie petitioner. 11. Added to this there is no apprehension of delay in the trial of the petitioner's case beyond one year since the State Government has sanctioned another Additional Sessions Court at Cuddapah on the request of the High Court and a G.O. is also issued to that effect. The trial of the petitioner will undoubtedly be expedited, on account of the advent of the new Additional Sessions Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 12. Before parting with the order, I have to observe that Sri Rajagopal Reddy deserves appreciation for bringing to the notice of this Court the woeful plight of the under-trial prisoners in Cuddapah District and need for more Additional Sessions Courts to relieve the under-trial prisoners of their sufferings. R.S.R. ----- Petition dismissed.