Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1991 DIGILAW 1527 (ALL)

Babu v. State of U. P

1991-12-17

M.L.BHAT

body1991
ORDER M.L. Bhat, J. - In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 339 of 1990 decided on 25.4.1990 it was directed that the petitioner cannot be granted bail at that stage because the evidence of eye witnesses was not recorded then. It was observed that a fresh bail application may be moved after the statements of the eye witnesses are recorded. If such application is moved, that may be considered by the Trial Court. The bail application of the petitioner seems to have been rejected. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail. 2. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit stating certain facts which he has not mentioned in the bail application. This is done by the petitioner in pursuance of the observations of this Court made in its order dated 11.10.1991. 3. The petitioner has claimed bail on the ground of inordinate delay in the trial of the case. The petitioner is said to be in jail for more than two years and it is prayed that bail may be granted to him. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that speedy trial may not be a fundamental right of the accused but right to have speedy trial is implicit within the broad sweep of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed on an authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara v. State of Bihar, reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1360. It is contended that it is the fundamental right of every citizen to protect his life and liberty unless it is impaired in accordance with the procedure established by law. The procedure, which seeks to deprive a person of sex his liberty, cannot be said to be reasonable, fair or just, as it would violate the guarantees contained in Article 21 of the Constitution. 5. It was next contended that on a number of occasions the case was taken up but no witness was present. However, statements of some important witnesses are now recorded. Only the statements of formal witnesses are to be recorded. It is urged that this is a fit case in which the principles laid down in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8157 of 1990 decided by the High Court on 4.9.1991 should be applied. However, statements of some important witnesses are now recorded. Only the statements of formal witnesses are to be recorded. It is urged that this is a fit case in which the principles laid down in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8157 of 1990 decided by the High Court on 4.9.1991 should be applied. It is contended by the petitioner that on the ground of parity he should be granted bail because the co-accused of the case is already enlarged on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgments dated 9.4.1991 and 30.9.1991. 6. The judgments on which the petitioner has relied upon for grant of bail are no doubt very celebrated and deserve to be respected but the facts of this case are slightly different, which may not bring this case with in the ambit of the principles laid down in the authorities relied upon by the petitioner. The petitioner was released on bail for a very short period on 2.2.1990 for one month. He is said to have surrender on 5.3.1991. Thereafter on 9.3.1990 he is said to have been again released for ten days on parole. The petitioner submits that he was actually released on 9.3.1990 for ten days but the report of the concerned police station, which was shown to me by the Counsel for the other side, shows that he was released on 9.3.1990. On 12.3.1990 an F.I.R. is said to have been registered against the petitioner for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. It is alleged that during this period he attempted to commit the murder of one person, who was related to the complainant. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner he is said to have been granted bail for the said offence but the fact remains that the moment the petitioner found an opportunity to come out of jail, he got himself involved in a heinous criminal case for which he is to be tried. As to whether the petitioner will be punished or not in that case is immaterial. His conduct during the period when he was not in jail would not permit this Court to apply the principle of parity to his case. Moreover, the statements of some important formal witnesses are not recorded as yet. It is not feasible to release the petitioner on bail before the statements of those witnesses are recorded. His conduct during the period when he was not in jail would not permit this Court to apply the principle of parity to his case. Moreover, the statements of some important formal witnesses are not recorded as yet. It is not feasible to release the petitioner on bail before the statements of those witnesses are recorded. It is likely that he may prevent the witnesses to appear in Court. 7. The delay in the trial, which has occasioned so far, is not due to the prosecution alone. There are many reasons for delay in the trial. The conduct of trial should not have been delayed, but on some occasions the witnesses could not appear for the reasons beyond the control of the prosecution also. However, the Trial Court will ensure that no delay is caused in future in the Trial and the statements of the prosecution witnesses are recorded forthwith and the statements of the defence witnesses, if any, are also recorded expeditiously. 8. The bail application is accordingly rejected.