JUDGMENT 1. - This VIth bail application has been filed on behalf of three accused- petitioners who were arrested on October 1, 1987 regarding an incident which occurred on September 14, 1987 in which one person lost his life. 2. The main contention of learned counsel inter alia is that the trial has made hardly in progress even though more than 19 months have lapsed since the accused-petitioners were arrested. Only one witness out of list of 33 witnesses cited by prosecution has been examined. It is contended that in view of the protracted trial the detention of the accused- petitioners is an abuse of the process of Court and amounts to the deprivation of their personal liberty without fair procedure established by law and falls foul of the canons by Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also contended that there is no allegation on behalf of the prosecution that if the accused- petitioners are released on bail will either tamper with the witnesses or are likely to abscond. It is pointed out that other three accused-persons were released on bail by this Court on May 25, 1988. Learned counsel has also pointed out the reasons on account of which the identification is unreliable and it was held after a delay of 11/2 months. He has also pointed out discrepancies in the various statements recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code and that the same were recorded after a delay of more than a month. It is also contended that in spite of directions given by this Court for expeditious trial. no such thing has happened. It is stated that while disposing of the third bail application this Court vide its order dated July 18, 1988 had directed that the trial should be expedited and at least two hearings be fixed every month and the eye-witnesses should be examined first. While disposing of the Vth bail application this Court vide its order dated March 9, 1989 directed that since few months were vested on account of non-working of courts due to strikes by judicial employees, therefore. it was directed that the trial court should fix at least two dates every week for recording evidence and that eye-witnesses should be examined first. it was directed that the trial court should fix at least two dates every week for recording evidence and that eye-witnesses should be examined first. 10 weeks time was granted to complete the trial but in spite of specific directions the trial court has examined only one witness which shows that prosecution is not interested to proceed with the trial expeditiously. 3. None has cared to appear on behalf of State. It is rather unfortunate that even in such important matters State does not take any interest in bringing before the Court its version. It also shows that all is not well with the Office of the Government Advocate and even the important cases are handled in a careless and negligent manner. 4. Shri v. P. Vishno , learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the complainant also could not satisfy the Court that the directions of this Court have been properly followed and that the trial is proceeding expeditiously. 5. The incident occurred on September 14, 1987 and the accused-persons were arrested on October 1, 1987 while disposing of the 3rd bail application filed an behalf of the accused-persons this Court vide its order dated July 18, 1988 had directed that trial should be expedited and at least two hearings be fixed every month and eye-witnesses should be examined first. While disposing of the 4th bail- application vide its order dated November 18, 1988 it was observed that it is evident that the prosecution had failed to examine any witness even though the case was committed for trial on January 4, 1988. The witnesses were not present in spite of service of summons and bailable warrants. However, a further chance was given to the prosecution for expeditious trial and the learned counsel for the petitioners agree to co-operate even if an earlier date was fixed in the trial court for examining the witness as the next date was on December 13, 1988. This Court, therefore, fixed next date on December 5/6, 1988 and trial court was directed to fix at least three dates every month. Therefore. 5th bail application was filed on February 1, 1989 which was disposed of by order dated March 9, 1989. This Court, therefore, fixed next date on December 5/6, 1988 and trial court was directed to fix at least three dates every month. Therefore. 5th bail application was filed on February 1, 1989 which was disposed of by order dated March 9, 1989. During the course of arguments it was pointed out by the learned counsel that even though the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge on January 4, 1988, the charge was framed only on June 22, 1988, at that time till January 19, 1989 not even a single prosecution witness was examined in the trial court. During the course of arguments it was pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor that from September, 1988 there was a strike of judicial employees, therefore, the court's functioning came to stand still. Again the judicial-employees were on strike from February 4, 1989. It was, therefore, urged by learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant to give some more time to complete the trial and, therefore, 10 weeks' time was again granted and a direction was given that at least two dates be fixed in a week for recording evidence of the prosecution and to complete the trial within the above period. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after the order of this Court dated March 9, 1989 the dates fixed by the trial court were 16-3-89, 25-4-89 and 26-5-89. 6. It may be pointed out that our procedural law contains certain provisions regarding just. reasonable and expeditious procedure. It is provided under Section 173 Cr.P C. that the investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay. It is provided under Section 309 Cr.P C. that the proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and, in particular, when the examination of witnesses has started the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined and it is also provided that if the adjournment becomes necessary beyond the following day the Court shall record reasons for doing so. It may be further pointed out that Sessions cases should be proceeded with day to day and trial concluded as early as possible. The tendency of long dates in the trial of sessions cases some time even more than a month is to be deprecated. It may be further pointed out that Sessions cases should be proceeded with day to day and trial concluded as early as possible. The tendency of long dates in the trial of sessions cases some time even more than a month is to be deprecated. Chapter IV of General Rules (Criminal) 1979 (hereinafter referred to 'the Rules') deals with the trial of sessions cases. It is provided in Rule 42 that sessions case should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. It is also provided that the Sessions Judge who fixed particular number of days in a week for disposal of sessions work. It is further provided in Rule 43 that when sessions trial is started the trial court shall see that it is disposed of in the same session and not adjourn to another session. It is also provided that sessions cases shall be taken up day to day until all the witnesses and attendance have been examined and discharged. The Sessions Judge is expected to take all necessary stets to get the summon served on the witnesses in time and after found necessary the Superintendant of Police of the District can be asked to make special efforts to secure the attendance of witnesses. It also provides that trial of the sessions cases shall not be adjourned/postponed except in unavoidable circumstances and the reasons for the same shall be recorded. It is thus,clear from the provisions discussed above that the trial in sessions cases, and in fact in all criminal cases, has to be expeditious and unnecessary delay is to be avoided. When the case has been committed to the trial court on January 4, 1988 and so far only one prosecution witnesses has been examined out of list of 33 witnesses cited on behalf of the prosecution, it can be said that trial is proceeding at sale space though the petitioners are behind the bar since October 1. 1987. The provisions and Rules made for expeditious disposal of the sessions cases are in fact obeyed more in breach than in compliance. In the case of Raghuveer Singh and others v. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 149 it was held by the Apex Court that right to fair trial within reasonable time is constitutionally protected right. Infringement of that right in appropriate vases is sufficient to quash, conviction or to stop further proceedings. In the case of Raghuveer Singh and others v. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 149 it was held by the Apex Court that right to fair trial within reasonable time is constitutionally protected right. Infringement of that right in appropriate vases is sufficient to quash, conviction or to stop further proceedings. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360 it was observed by their Lordships of Supreme Court that even under our Constitution though speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by the Apex Court in Menka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 . In Menka Gandhi's case it was laid down that Article at confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with established procedure of law. It was further stated that it is not enough to constitute compliance with the requirements of Article 21 that some semblance of a procedure, should be prescribed by law, but that the procedure should be reasonable, fair and just. If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 and re would be entitled to enforce such fundamental right and secure his release. It can, therefore, be said that any procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be reasonable, fair or just unless such procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. It can therefore, be said that by speedy trial is meant reasonable, expeditious trial and it is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. As discussed above even though our procedure lays down reasonable, just and fair procedure for trial of the accused-persons involving sessions cases but the trial has evidently failed to act in accordance with it. In Hussainara Khatoon's case (supra) it was observed by Bhagwati, J. (as be then was) even a delay of one year in commencement of trial is bad enough. In Arjun Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 Cr. L. R. (Rajasthan) 476. In Hussainara Khatoon's case (supra) it was observed by Bhagwati, J. (as be then was) even a delay of one year in commencement of trial is bad enough. In Arjun Bhanwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1988 Cr. L. R. (Rajasthan) 476. VIIth bail application was granted on the ground that Rule-43 of General Rules (Criminal) 1980 was not followed and direction of this Court to conclude trial within specified time was not complied with. Similarly in Laxman Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 WLN (U.C.) 662= 1987(1) RLR 716 . since accused was in jail for 11/2 years and not a single witness was produced in last 11 months. It was held that speedy trial is fundamental right granted under Article 21 and accused deserves to be released on bail. In Lokesh Bhardwaj v. State of Rajasthan 1986 RLR 1029=1987 IJR 557 (Raj ) it was held by this Court while granting Vth bail application that the accused-person is not supposed to suffer on account of any mistake or delay of the court and if the trial is not completed by this Court, the accused should be released on bail. 7. I am, therefore, of the view that this is a fit case in which the accused- petitioners be released on bail. It is. therefore, ordered that if the accused- petitioners namely. Mohan son of Shri Kishore, Heera son of Shri Hardev and Murli son of Shri Sunderlal furnish two sureties of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. Ten Thousand Only) each and a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the trial court, Bundi for their appearance before that court or any other court on all dates of hearings as and when and whereever called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against them. 8. The trial court is further directed to ensure the attendance of the witnesses even by issue of warrants of arrest as some of the witnesses have not appeared despite service of bailable warrants. It is also directed that the trial court shall proceed with the case day to day and shall complete the trial which has been already delayed and decide the case expeditiously. The copy of this order be sent to trial Court immediately.Bail granted. *******