Lihiri, J.:- This is an application under Article 286 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner complains that his right to speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution has been violated and his statutory right of getting bail u/s. 167. Cr. P. C. has been breached by the courts in Mizoram. Mr-. R. L. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the spirit of the Criminal Procedure Code is squarely applicable in Mizoram and the Judicial Officers are bound by the provisions of the Code. 2. We are fully aware of the law and order condition in Mizoram. However, the mandatory provision of the Constitu­tion as well as the statutory provision cannot be breached in the name of law and order. The petitioner is Indian and he has Constitutional and statutory safeguards and they must be preserved and protected. We have heard about the difficulties of the administrative machinery of the Union Territory for quick investigation of the cases and submissions of the charge sheets. However, we would observe that this plea cannot be a handle for detaining the people of Mizoram and keeping them confined in jail year after year. Indeed the security of the State and the maintenance of public order are of primary importance. However individual liberty cannot be allowed to be trampled. In the instant case the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution cannot be denied on any pretext or pretence. 3. The petitioner was arrested on 22. 6. 83 Lunglei P. S. Case No. 30(8) of 1983 stated to be u/s. 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act as well as u/s. 28(1) (A) of the Arms Act and while in detention Luwngtlai Police registered another case against the petitioner being Lawngtlai P. S. Case No. 8(7) of 1982 stated to be u/s. 302 I. P. C. and Sec. 25(1) (a) of the Arms Act. We do not desire to stall further proceedings including investigation of the case by calling the records of the cases and thereafter to make necessary order. We do not desire to stall further proceedings including investigation of the case by calling the records of the cases and thereafter to make necessary order. However, we feel that in near future in appropriate cases we shall have to call for the records, examine the conduct, action and ommisions of the officers and critically examine them to preserve, conserve and protect the lives and liberties of the people of Mizoram to maintain the Rule of law. 4. We have noticed that in some of the petitions incarerated persons complained that binding decisions of this court were not give in importance and passed over by learned Magistrates taking up the cases. There cannot be any alibi for not submitting charge sheet in a case registered in the year 1982. 2 years have gone by. Dr. M. K. Sharmaj learned Standing Counsel Mizoram submits that the registration yew of Lawngtlai P. S. case might be of 1983. Even if we assums that both the cases were registered in the year 1983, yet 12 long months have gone by and the police have failed to perform their legal duty in submitting charge sheets. The plea that sanction could not be obtained is no plea. The authorities must be up and doing if in fact they want to prosecute the accused person and do not desire to detain him illegally on the pretext of getting sanction. How is it that the courts remained silent spectator and did not act in accordance with the provisions of law ? Why the courts in seisin of the case did not consider the principles of law, enunciated in Zarzoliana vs. Government of Mizoram, 1981 Crl. L. J. 1736 and other Division Beach Judgments of this court accepting the same view ? The courts in Mizocam are bound by the decisions. To provide early relief to the petiti­oner we make the following directions :- (i) Learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Lawngtlai in seisin of Lawngtlai P. S. Case No. 8 (7) 1982 sic (1983) shall call upon the accused to appear before him and hear his bail appli­cation in the light of the law enunciated in Zarzolina (supra) along with the relevant amended provision which have extended the period of detention in certain cases. If the learned Magi­strate considers that the petitioner is entitled to bail under the provisions of Sec. 167 Cr. If the learned Magi­strate considers that the petitioner is entitled to bail under the provisions of Sec. 167 Cr. P. C., he must be enlarged on bail. If the learned Magistrate finds that the petitioner is not entitled to bail u/s. 167 of the Code he shall consider the merit of the case and give reasons in the event of refusal to grant bail as to why he reached the conclusion that there appeared reasonable ground for believing that the accused had been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. If he does not find material to hold that the accused can be held guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprison­ment for life, he shall certainly consider the question of granting bail to the accused petitioner. If he refused bail on any ground whatsoever he shall furnish a copy of the order to the petitioner to enable him to move the High Court for a getting appropriate relief. (ii) Learned Magistrate shall strongly impress upon the investigating agency to submit charge-sheets forthwith. (iii) Learned Magistrate shall hear and dispose of the claim of the petitioner to obtain bail within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. (iv) The aforesaid directions are also applicable in respect of Lunglei P. S. Case No. 30 (8) of 1983. Learned Addl. Dist­rict Magistrate, Lunglei shall be bound by the directions con­tained in this order and act in terms thereof. 5. With these directions we dispose of the application. 6. Send a copy of this order to the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Lawngtlai; Addl. District Magistrate, Lunglei as well as to the accused petitioner in jail. 7. Mr. R. L. Yadav, learned Amicus Curiae appeared yesterday as well as today. He shall be entitled to two day's hearing fees.