Judgment SANJAY TIBREWAL, J. ( 1 ) MR. K. K. Mehrish appearing for the petitioner made two fold submissions in support of his arguments to get release of the petitioner. The submissions made by Mr. Mehrish raise two questions which are of general importance. The first question is: Whether an early trial/speedy trial in a criminal case is possible or practicable unless the prosecuting agency and the concerned police officers take interest and feel their accountability and responsibility towards the courts proceedings? A second related question is: How long an accused be kept in prison as an under-trial even he is facing a charge of murder if the prosecuting agency adopt an attitude of indifference? ( 2 ) AN early decision in a criminal case or sessions trial is possible only if the prosecution witnesses appear in the Court in time. Therefore, it is essential that the witnesses are properly served in time by the concerned authorities and they are produced in the Court. However the present case demonstrates the helplessness of the Presiding Officer of the court as both the wings, namely; the Prosecuting Agency as well as the concerned police officers have behaved in a callous manner and showed indifference towards the proceedings and orders of the court. ( 3 ) IN the present case, the petitioner alongwith 16 other persons is facing trial under Section 302, I. P. C. The incident took place on May 12, 1990 and three persons lost their lives from the complainants side. The prosecution case is that all the seventeen accused persons armed with axes, guns and Khuntias etc. made an attack on the members of the complainant party causing injuries to Surjamal, Shishupal, Khemraj and Raghunath. Accusation against the petitioner is that he and the co-accused Durga Shanker were having guns and they made guns fires. It is also alleged that the injured persons ran towards the village Narainpura but they were chased by all the seventeen accused persons. Injured Surajmal, Shishupal and Khemraj died due to the injuries sustained by them. ( 4 ) SOME of the accused persons have already been released on bail by this Court. The accused petitioner is in custody since May, 1990 and 35 months or so have passed but the trial court could not be completed. ( 5 ) MR. Injured Surajmal, Shishupal and Khemraj died due to the injuries sustained by them. ( 4 ) SOME of the accused persons have already been released on bail by this Court. The accused petitioner is in custody since May, 1990 and 35 months or so have passed but the trial court could not be completed. ( 5 ) MR. K. K. Mehrish, learned counsel for the petitioner stoutly contended that speedy trial in a criminal case is now a fundamental right of an accused, and he cannot be kept in Jail for an indefinite period. He argued that for the in-action or indifference of the police officers the accused petitioner could not be made to suffer as he is not responsible for the delay. It was also contended by the learned counsel that D. O. letters were written to the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General of P0 lice, Kota, to take steps to get the witnesses served upon, but no positive efforts were made by them or by the Station House Officer of the concerned police station. Learned counsel expressed his anguish towards the attitude of all the police officers and contended that if such conditions continued then a time may come when there would be a complete chaose and break-down of judicial system and the fundamental right of an accused for speedy trial shall remain only a formality in papers. Learned counsel read over the various order sheets of the last 11 months of the trial court. ( 6 ) THE Public Prosecutor is not present and I am unable to get any assistance from him also. ( 7 ) FROM the order-sheets of the trial court, it appears that 15th and 16th May, 1992 were fixed for recording the statements of the remaining prosecution witnesses. But, no witness was present on both the days and the trial Court directed to issue bailable warrants to secure the attendance of the witnesses. The warrants were directed to be sent to the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kota with D. O. letter to see that the witnesses are served as the accused were in jail. It was also intimated that the Station House Officer, Police Station, Itawa was taking no interest and a specific direction be given to him to get the service of the notice effected on the witnesses. The next date was fixed as 17. 6. 1992. It was also intimated that the Station House Officer, Police Station, Itawa was taking no interest and a specific direction be given to him to get the service of the notice effected on the witnesses. The next date was fixed as 17. 6. 1992. The above direction of the learned trial Judge, did not bring any fruitful result, as no efforts were made by the above police officers to get the witnesses served upon. With the result that on June 17, 1992, also no witness was present. On the next date also no witness was present and the hearing was adjourned to 17th and 18th July, 1992. On 17th July, 1992, no witness was present. On 18th July, 1992 also no witness was present. As the concerned police officer, namely S. P. or the S. H. O. did not take any interest and efforts were not made by them to get the witnesses served. Learned trial court, therefore, directed that the warrants be sent to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kota Range, Kota. A. D. O. letter was also written intimating him that the Superintendent of Police (Rural) Kota did not take any interest in the service of warrants and that he himself should see that the witnesses are served before the next date. On the day i. e. 28. 8. 1992 again no witness was present. The case was already fixed on 29. 8. 1992 and on this date also no witness was present. Hence the case was adjourned with a direction to issue fresh bailable warrants to secure the attendance of the warrants. On 25. 9. 1992 only one witness Kailash was present. However, his statement also could not be recorded as the lawyers were on strike. On the next day i. e. on 26. 9. 1992 only one witness Laxmi Narain was present. His statement also could not be recorded for the above mentioned reasons. Hence the next date was fixed for 23rd and 24th October, 1992. On 23rd October, 1992, no witness was present. On 24th October, 1992 only one witness Laxmi Narain was present. The Station House Officer, Sri Bhagwan Godara came in the court when the order sheet was being written. Both the witnesses were bound down to be present on 21. 11. 1992. On 21. 11. 1992 Laxmi Narain was present and his statement was recorded. On 24th October, 1992 only one witness Laxmi Narain was present. The Station House Officer, Sri Bhagwan Godara came in the court when the order sheet was being written. Both the witnesses were bound down to be present on 21. 11. 1992. On 21. 11. 1992 Laxmi Narain was present and his statement was recorded. Neither the Station House Officer nor any other witness was present and the case was again adjourned for 11. 12. 1992. On 11. 12. 1992 no prosecution witness was present. The trial court again directed that the warrants be sent to Superintendent of Police (Rural), Kota, and he should be informed that at all costs the witnesses should be served upon failing which the prosecution witnesses may not be summoned in future and it may have adverse effect on the prosecution case for their non-appearance in the witness box and he will be responsible for the same. This also brought no result and on the next date i. e. 8. 1. 1993 no prosecution witness was present. Again the case was adjourned to 5. 2. 1993. On this date also no witness was present. Case was again adjourned to 27. 2. 1993 and no prosecution witness was present on this date also. Now the next date is 17. 4. 1993. ( 8 ) THE above proceedings in the trial court showed a total callousness and failure of the system, total lack of accountability and responsibility in the prosecuting agency or the police officer upto the rank of Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police. We may imagine the future of the criminal trials of such attitude of the above agencies persist. The prosecuting agency and the police officers are primarily responsible to see that the prosecution witnesses are ,served in time and they are produced in court in time to avoid any delay in the trial of a criminal case. If they adopt an attitude of indifference then a criminal trial cannot proceed and early decisions cannot be expected even in sessions cases involving grave charge/charges against the accused persons. Will it not make a total break-down of the mechanism of the criminal courts? I again express my serious anxiety towards the prevailing conditions in Rajasthan. I have come across similar lapses on the part of the police officers and the prosecuting agency in other criminal cases. Will it not make a total break-down of the mechanism of the criminal courts? I again express my serious anxiety towards the prevailing conditions in Rajasthan. I have come across similar lapses on the part of the police officers and the prosecuting agency in other criminal cases. Earlier, a copy of the order was sent to the Director General of Police drawing his attention towards a similar situation and I presume that he must have received the same. I am not aware whether any serious thinking was given by the Director General of Police or not after the receipt of my earlier order. However, again I want to draw the attention of the State Government and the concerned agencies responsible for an early decision in criminal cases to now take a serious note of the worsening conditions as indicated by me. I hope and trust that the Director General of Police and other concerned authorities dealing with the prosecution of the criminal cases shall take immediate steps to improve the conditions before the same become irreparable. It may require action against the concerned officers who showed unaccountability towards the proceedings in criminal trials. For examination of prosecution witnesses in time in criminal cases, a proper and strict vigilance is necessary to see that the witnesses are served in time and they also appear in the court. ( 9 ) BE that as it may, another question before me is what order should be passed in the present bail application if the Government machinery has failed to perform its duty? Can an accused be kept in jail as an under-trial for an indefinite period. The simple answer is no. It has been held again and again by this Court and the Apex Court of the country that speedy trial in a criminal case is a fundamental right of an accused. (See. : Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, Kadra Pehadiya v. State of Bihar, State of Maharashtra v. Champa Lal, Sheela Barse v. Union of India V. K. Agrawal v. Vasantraj and K. K. Tiwari v. SP. (CBI ). ( 10 ) AS stated earlier, the petitioner is in Jail for the last 35 months or so. The delay in the trial was not at his fault. If the trial is not completed within 35 months then I have been left with no option but to release the petitioner on bail. (CBI ). ( 10 ) AS stated earlier, the petitioner is in Jail for the last 35 months or so. The delay in the trial was not at his fault. If the trial is not completed within 35 months then I have been left with no option but to release the petitioner on bail. ( 11 ) CONSEQUENTLY, it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Sita Ram s/c Hira Lal shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with stipulation to appear in that court or any other court on all the dates of hearing and as when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against him in this case. A copy of this order be sent to the Advisor to the Governor dealing with Law and Justice Department, and Director General of Police for follow up action. Petition allowed.