JUDGMENT 1. - This bail application is filed by Jamnalal Under Section 439, Cr. PC who is facing (rial along with Roshan lal and Bhanwar Lal and Kundan Lal in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Udaipur for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 302 read with Section 49 Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the prosecution Ganesh Lal Nagda lodged a written report at Police Station Pratap Nagar on 14-9-1983 alleging that on 13-9-1983 at about 11 p.m. in the night when he along with his family members was talking accused persons Bhanwar Lal, Roshan Lal Kundan Lal, Jamna Lal and Raju armed with deadly weapons came there and shouted that entire family be killed. It is alleged that Roshan Lal inflicted sword blow in the stomach of Bhagwati Lal. When Hukmi Chand, Fateh Lal, Chaturbhuj and Nirmala came to rescue Bhagwati Lal, were also injured by the accused persons. Bhagwati Lal died on account of the injuries. After completing the investigation the challan was filed against four accused persons. Raju being child is being tried separately by the Children's Court. 3. Jamnalal has moved this bail application for releasing him on bail. The learned Counsel for the accused argued that Roshan Lal is the person who inflicted fatal injury by sword to Bhagwati Lal as alleged by the prosecution. Bhagwati Lal according to medical report died on account of injury in the stomach inflicted by Roshan Lal. There is no allegation against Jamnalal that he inflicted any fatal blow to Bhagwati Lal. The only allegation against Jamnalal is that when Hukmichand, Chaturbhuj. Nirmala and Fateh Lal came to rescue Bhagwati Lal, accused Jamna Lal inflicted lathi blows to them. Except this there is no allegation that Jamna Lal had inflicted any blow to deceased Bhagwati Lal. It was also stated that Roshan Lal who is the main assailant, who is the author of the fatal injury has been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge on 8-2-1985 on medical ground Kundan Lal has been released on bail by this Court on 16-4-1984 on the ground of age and illness. Bhanwar Lal has also been released on bail on 25-6-1984. Now only Jamnalal accused has not been released on bail. It was also argued that the case is pending since 21st Nov. Bhanwar Lal has also been released on bail on 25-6-1984. Now only Jamnalal accused has not been released on bail. It was also argued that the case is pending since 21st Nov. 1984 for prosecution evidence and since then only one eye-witness has been examined by the trial Court. By this time four witnesses have also been examined but they are all formal witnesses. The other eye-witnesses on dates fixed by the Court either did not appear or if appeared their statements were not recorded. According to the learned Counsel for the accused it is a fault of the prosecution that the witnesses have not been examined and the case has been unnecessarily prolonged. The request of the learned Counsel is that when the petitioner Jamnalal is not the author of the fatal injury, and when the other co-accused have been released on bail specially Roshan Lal who is the author of the fatal injury, it is prayed that the case of Jamna Lal is fit to be released him on bail. 4. Shri N.P. Gupta appeared on behalf of the complainant and is assisting the Government Advocate, has vehemently opposed the bail application. According to him this application is the 5th bail application and the and the first bail application was rejected by this Court on 5-1-1984 by giving a detailed order. He argued that Jamnalal is the main person who is the leader of all the other accused persons. He brought them and the main person who instigated for this offence. From the circumstances of this case as revealed during investigation, Jamnalal is the principal offender in this case and he cannot escape liability from the offence of murder. Thus according to Mr. Gupta a case under Section 302 read with 149 prima facie is made out against Jamanlal and as ordered by lower Court while disposing the first bail application he is not entitled to be released on bail. It was also argued that the witnesses were present in the Court but their statements were not recorded on account of objections taken by the accused persons, on every date when the prosecution witness was present one or another objection used to be raised by the accused persons and they are responsible for this delay of this case. 5. Certain order-sheets were read over to me. 5. Certain order-sheets were read over to me. The previous order of the first bail application was also read over to me. I have perused the other bail applications also. It is suffice to say that the first bail application was disposed of when the case was under investigation. The subsequent bail applications were dismissed either withdrawn by the accused persons with permission to file fresh one but they were not disposed of on merits. 6. This is correct that Kundan Lal and Roshan Lal accused have been released on bail on medical ground Whatever the reason for the grant of their bail application but the fact is that the author of the fatal injury Roshan Lal has also been granted bail. There is no allegation against Jamna Lal accused to the effect that he inflicted any blow to the deceased. This present application has been filed after recording the statement of eye-witness Ganesh Lal. The statement of Ganesh Lal PW 1 is also read over to me. He has also not stated that Jamnalal had inflicted any blow to deceased Bhagwati Lal. The allegation against this accused is that he inflicted lathi blows to Nirmala, Chaturbhuj, Fateh Lal and Hukmi Chand. So when entering into the merits of this case this fact is not in dispute that Jamnalal petitioner did not give any blow to deceased Bhagwati Lal. 7. The first bail application was, no doubt, rejected by a detailed order. That application was rejected before filing the challan but before me the papers of the challan are on the record statement of the informant eye-witness is on the record and the circumstances are more clearly understood now then the position which was when the first bail application was rejected. 8. I would like to mention here the way in which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is proceeding with this case. I am sorry to remark that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not cared to look into the provision of the law with regard to trial of sessions case. After reading some order-sheets I find that the learned Sessions Judge either does not understand the correct procedure in trying a sessions case or intentionally not following the procedure. It is very sad affair that in a sessions case specially in a murder case a single eye-witness is examined on a day. After reading some order-sheets I find that the learned Sessions Judge either does not understand the correct procedure in trying a sessions case or intentionally not following the procedure. It is very sad affair that in a sessions case specially in a murder case a single eye-witness is examined on a day. This is very unfortunate that the prosecution too did not care for their own case and did not bother that the eye-witnesses be examined at a stretch. Either one witness was present or sometimes more witnesses were present but they were not examined. And special P.P. was appointed to conduct this case and it is very sad affair that the special P.P. did not care for this case and proceeds to conduct other cases in the camp Court to which he was attached. He should have refused to go to that Camp-Court and should have appeared to conduct this special case because he was appointed specially for this case. It seems that the Special P.P. too does not care about the responsibility given to him. If State can tolerate such Public Prosecutor it is the fate of the State but for all this negligence the accused should not be punished. The principle of jurisprudence is that unless you prove a case against a person, he is an innocent person and it is immaterial that the case is a murder case and that case is of a minor injury. The accused person is innocent person unless the case is proved against him so treating that a murder case is pending against a person a different attitude be given to him and he should be treated that he is an innocent person and if the case is established he should be punished but this is not the way to punish a person by prolonging the trial of the case and I feel pity on the learned Addl. Sessions Judge who does not understand how a sessions trial is tried and the cases are to be tried A sessions case should be tried in a one session but I feel that since 1984 only eye-witness has been examined by the worthy of Addl. Sessions Judge. Sessions Judge who does not understand how a sessions trial is tried and the cases are to be tried A sessions case should be tried in a one session but I feel that since 1984 only eye-witness has been examined by the worthy of Addl. Sessions Judge. Most unfortunate that such persons are sitting in the Courts and trying the cases of innocent persons, innocent because unless he is found guilty the person is innocent, therefore, all these circumstances indicate that the prosecution is at fault, they are not bothering about the trial of this case and the Sessions Judge is already taking it very light and trying the case as if it is a case under Section 323. Such type of working cannot be permitted at all. 9. After considering all the aspects and specially the fact that the petitioner Jamnalal is not the author of the fatal injury, the fact that the author of the fatal injury accused Roshan Lal has also been released on bail. The other co-accused against whom the allegation is similar to the allegation against present petitioner are released on bail, I see no reason to disallow the bail application. 10. Under these circumstances the bail application is granted. The accused is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 11. It is directed to the trial Court that he should proceed with this case day to day, no adjournment should be granted to the prosecution for bringing the witnesses and the prosecution is bound to bring their own witnesses. The Court is to see that the case should not be prolonged by the accused persons and it is further directed that the trial of this case should be completed within 4 months.Bail Appln Allowed. *******