B. M. LAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Criminal Case No. 2700 of 86 (Bhagwandas v. State of Madhya Pradesh) and Misc. Criminal Case No. 2172 of 86 (Nankun and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh ). ( 2 ) BY these petitions under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) the applicants accused are seeking their release on bail. ( 3 ) THESE bail petitions involve important questions of law of general public importance as to whether the provision of Sections 167, 209, 215, to 235, 309 and 317 of the Code ensure speedy trial and in failure to conclude trial speedily within a reasonable time, does Article 21 of the Constitution of India, extend protection to under-trial prisoner in granting benefit of bail during trial. ( 4 ) THE material facts of these three bail petitions are as under: (a) In Misc. Criminal Case No. 2073 of 86 the applicants were arrested on 28-7-1985 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 302/24. I. P. C. but more than a year has passed, the trial has not been completed as yet. (b) Similarly, in Misc. Criminal Case No. 21n of 1986 the applicants were arrested on 12-9- 1985 under Sections 302/149, 147, 148, 341, 441, 427 and 323, I. P. C. It is alleged that more than a year has elapsed, but the trial has not yet been completed. (c) In Misc. Criminal Case No. 2786 of 86, the application for bail was received from Jail. The applicant was arrested for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 302, I. P. C. on 3-1- 1984, but his trial has also not been completed as yet. ( 5 ) THUS, in all these aforesaid three cases the applicants have been in custody for more than a year and their respective trial is still pending. ( 6 ) SHRI Surendra Singh with Shri Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants accused and Shri S. C. Datt and Shri Hira Singh Chouhan, learned Amicus Curiae, supporting the case of the applicants-accused argued that in case of delayed trial, where even after a lapse of one year from the date of the arrest of the accused, no progress has not been shown in the trial, the accused persons deserve to be released on bail, pending trial. On the other hand, Shri U. K. Sharma, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State non applicant opposing the prayer for releasing the applicants on bail, argued that there is no provision in the Code so as to warrant to conclude the Sessions trial within a stipulated period, failing which due to delayed trial the accused persons be released on bail. ( 7 ) AFTER having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Amicus Curiae, I have formed the opinion that on the ground of delayed trial, if accused person on his part has not created any hindrances in the progress and conclusion of the trial, he deserves to be released on bail. ( 8 ) IN this regard the relevant provisions of the Code i. e. , Sections 197, 209, 225 to 234, 309 and 317 which speak of speedy investigation in the crime, as well as, conducting the trial expeditiously, have to be appreciated in the context of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which contemplates: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Here, we are concerned with the concept of personal liberty of a person who is accused of an offence and being proceeded with in a Court of law and whose personal liberty is abs cured due to his detention in custody pending trial, especially where the trial is being dragged for no fault of the accused. ( 9 ) PROVISION of sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code has brought a revolutionary change in imparting criminal justice speedily, inasmuch as, an embargo has been put on the investigating agency to complete the investigation of the alleged crime within the stipulated time, i. e. , 90 days and 60 days, as the case may be, failing which if the charge-sheet is not presented, within that period the accused becomes entitled to be released on bail. ( 10 ) AT this juncture, it is important to discuss the provisions of the Code which deal about the procedural aspect of the sessions trial. ( 10 ) AT this juncture, it is important to discuss the provisions of the Code which deal about the procedural aspect of the sessions trial. After completing the investigation, the moment charge- sheet is presented before the Magistrate, it is expected of him that after observing certain preliminaries, he should commit the case to the Court of Session at required by Section 209 of the Code. In Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India1 it has been held that the committal Court is only required to so that the offence/s as disclosed is/are triable be the Court of Sessions or not and if it is triable by the Court of Session, then the committal Court is simply to forward the case for trial before the Court of Sessions. Therefore, if the function of the committal Court has been so reduced to the extent of examining whether the case is triable by the Court of Sessions or not, then this function of the Committal Court in my opinion, may be completed within reasonable time, say in one month from the date of presentation of the challan. ( 11 ) AFTER committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, provisions of Chapter XVIII of the Code come into operation. The relevant provisions are from Section 225 to 235. Under Section 228 of the Code, the Court of Sessions is required to frame Charge, which may well be dons within a reasonable period, say one month from the date of commitment of the case. ( 12 ) THEREAFTER the case is set down for trial, under section 230 of the Code, the Court of Sessions is vested with the powers for compelling the attendance of the witnesses in Court. ( 13 ) UNDER Section 231 of the Code, on the date so fixed, the Court shall proceed to fake all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. Here, the words shall proceed to take all such evidence have got a wide connotation which issue mandate upon the Court to record the evidence expeditiously without any loss of time, avoiding unnecessary adjournments in Sessions trial. Here, the words shall proceed to take all such evidence have got a wide connotation which issue mandate upon the Court to record the evidence expeditiously without any loss of time, avoiding unnecessary adjournments in Sessions trial. ( 14 ) THUS, a bare perusal of Chapter XVIII of the Code and the relevant provisions as discussed aforesaid, would show that the proceedings of Sessions Trial, so contemplated under these provisions, may in my opinion, be completed within a reasonable period, say, four months, barring few exceptional cases, where accused person does not cooperate with the trial or the prosecution and defence witnesses are in such a large number that even by conducting day to day trial, recording of evidence cannot be completed within that period. ( 15 ) SIMILARLY, Section 309, Cr. P. C. speaks about the expeditious trial. This section postulates that once the examination of the witnesses has begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance are examined. ( 16 ) WHERE it is found that by one reason or the other the accused persons is/are not cooperating with the smooth progress of the trial, then in such a situation by making use of the provisions of Section 317 of the Code, the Court has power to dispense with the attendance of the accused and proceed with the trial in his absence. Then, under sub section (2) of Section 317 of the Code, the trial of such an accused person may be separated. ( 17 ) A reading of the provisions of Sections 167, 209, 225 to 235, 309 and 317 of the Code, collectively or independently of each other, does spell out expressly about the speedy trial, avoiding undue delay, within a reasonable time. ( 18 ) THEREFORE, by enacting these provisions in amended form in the Code, the intention of the legislature could be gathered that endeavour has been made to achieve the object of expediting sessions trial so that it be concluded within a reasonable shortest period and guilty be punished without any loss of time and innocent be exonerated, so as to avoid keeping of under tn Is in jail for indefinite period. ( 19 ) THE aforesaid landmark change introduced by the provisions of Section 167,209, 255 to 235, 309 and 317 of the present Code has to be read alongwith other relevant provisions of the Code which deal about the sessions trial and that of provision of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This crucial provision in the Constitution is a sacred concept for extending protection to life and liberty of persons. ( 20 ) IN this context a bare reading of the provision of Article 21 of the Constitution spells out that it issues mandate against the deprivation of personal liberty of a person, except according to the procedure established by law. The procedure prescribed under the Code is, therefore, to be adhered to strictly for speedy trial to protect the right of personal liberty so guaranteed under the Constitution. ( 21 ) IN Hussinara Khatoon and others v. State of Bihar2, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held thus: A procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be reasonable, fair or justt unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as reasonable fair or justt and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Art. 21. Here, it will not be out of point to state that the provisions of the Code referred to above which deal with speedy investigation and trial in criminal cases, are not arbitrary, oppressive or fanciful, on the other hand, they are reasonably fair and just and therefore, if according to the procedure so established by law, speedy trial is not conducted resort may be taken of Article 21 of the Constitution which issues mandate against deprivation of personal liberty. Thus, it is implicit that right to fair trial which has been held to be a part of the right to protection of life and liberty, holding of speedy trial is an implied ingredient of fair trial. Thus, it is implicit that right to fair trial which has been held to be a part of the right to protection of life and liberty, holding of speedy trial is an implied ingredient of fair trial. ( 22 ) THE words except according to the procedure established by law, in Article 21, having wide connotation, are clear in themselves and in broad sweep mean that no person shall be deprived of his or personal liberty except according to law. While enacting the provisions of the Code, referred to above, pertaining to speedy trial, the intention of the legislature does not seem to keep under trials in jail for indefinite period which is being against the criminal jurisprudence, amounts to punishment, until and unless guilt is established by fair and speedy trial. ( 23 ) THEREFORE, it is implicit that Article 21 of the Constitution does imply about the speedy trial. This provision has been interpreted by the apex Court of the land in Manka Gandhi v. Union of India3 in Hussainara Khatoons case (supra) and Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration4. ( 24 ) FOR depriving personal liberty of a person, there is no provision under the Code which authorizes the Court to keep the accused (under trial) in jail for indefinite period, without conducting speedy trial in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Code. Therefore, if the trial is not conducted smoothly and concluded speedily despite the accused cooperating with the Court, within a reasonable time, as expressed in the foregoing paragraphs then under the garb of procedure established by law he cannot be detained indefinitely unjustifiably and in that circumstance he becomes entitled to seek protection under Article 21 of the Constitution. ( 25 ) HERE, it may be mentioned that the procedure laid down in the Code is to achieve the concept of personal liberty envisaged in Article 21 of the Constitution and as such the procedure embodied in the Code cannot be allowed to be used at the peril of the personal liberty of the under trial accused by detaining him in custody in a trial dragging on for unduly long time where no fault of the accused is found in lingering on the same. ( 26 ) THE leisurely way in which trials are being conducted by the Courts in adjourning committal and trial proceedings is a slur on the administration of justice, which should always be avoided in all possible circumstances andtherefore, the trial once begins, should be continued de die in diem until it is concluded. ( 27 ) IT is to be noted that delayed trial not only creates harassment to the accused person, but also causes harassment to the witnesses as well. Delay effects recollection of true facts of the incident, with the result in cases of delayed trial, the possibility of creating confusion in the mind of the witnesses in narrating true facts of the incident cannot be ruled out and in such a situation when witnesses either be ruled out and in such a situation when witnesses either turn hostile or obscure the real truth due to delay in recording evidence, the trial ends in acquittal of the accused for want of cogent evidence on record. ( 28 ) IN this way, such an acquittal results in failure of justice because of the net outcome of delayed trial and at the same time becomes the subject-matter of citizens talk as well about the functions of the Court. Not only that but the people at large also start losing confidence in Courts functioning due to delayed trial. In this context I am constrained to say that the people forget that such acquittal on account of delayed trial is the result of insufficient number of Judges in sub ordinate Judiciary. ( 29 ) HERE, it is pertinent to say that fair and speedy justice being the basic requirement of our Constitution, it is expected from the Government to make provision for increasing the strength of the subordinate judiciary to achieve the object of our Constitution in imparting fair and speedy justice. ( 30 ) THE view expressed by this Court in Babu Mulla and others v. State of MP. 5 is again being reiterated that paucity of time with the existing judicial machinery for not trying accused expeditiously, is no ground to refuse bail as it is against all concept of human liberty and that in such circumstances the accused should not be refused bail. 5 is again being reiterated that paucity of time with the existing judicial machinery for not trying accused expeditiously, is no ground to refuse bail as it is against all concept of human liberty and that in such circumstances the accused should not be refused bail. ( 31 ) IN the light of the aforesaid discussion, if the conclusion of the trial is not possible within a reasonable time as observed above, in that circumstances, the under-trial prisoner deserves to be released on bail pending trial on the ground of delay in trial. ( 32 ) HOWEVER, it is made clear that in cases where bail is claimed on the ground of delay in trial, due to laches on the part of prosecution, the Court shall examine the record and satisfy Itself in calling to the conclusion whether the accused has created any hindrances and the delay in the trial is the result of the non-cooperation of the accused with the trial and if it is found that delay in the trial was caused due to accuseds attempt, then he shall not be entitled to get the benefit of bail on the ground of delay in trial. ( 33 ) THE records of the present bail petitions, if focused, in view of the aforesaid observations, then there is nothing to suggest that the accused persons in all the three cases created any hindrance in their respective trial in order to prolong the same, despite that in two cases more than one year has passed and the third one is pending for more than two years, Therefore, under the circumstances as discussed above, in my opinion, the applicants-accused in all the three cases, deserves to be enlarged on bail pending trial on the ground of delayed trial alone. ( 34 ) BEFORE parting with the case I may extend thanks to Shri S. C. Datt and Shri Hira Singh Chauhan who appeared as Amicus Curiae and had given their valuable assistance to the Court. ( 35 ) FROM the discussions aforesaid, the bail applications in Misc. Criminal Case No. 2073/86, No. 2700/86 and No. 2172/86 are allowed and the applicants in all the above three cases, are directed to be released on bail on each of them furnishing security in the sum of Rs. ( 35 ) FROM the discussions aforesaid, the bail applications in Misc. Criminal Case No. 2073/86, No. 2700/86 and No. 2172/86 are allowed and the applicants in all the above three cases, are directed to be released on bail on each of them furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for their appearances in the lower court on the date as may be fixed by that court and for their continuing so to attend until otherwise directed by that court and at such other place as that court may direct in that behalf. Bail granted. .