VIDYA NAND, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for both sides. ( 2 ) BY this application under Sections 439 Cr. P. C. the petitioner has prayed for his release on bail as he is detained to custody in connection with Regent Park. P. S. Case No. 1 dated 3-1-1996 under Sections 302/34/109/120b I. P. C. and Sections 24/27 of the Arms Act. ( 3 ) CHARGE-SHEET in this case was filed on or about 3-4-1996 against large number of accused including the petitioner showing him therein as an absconder. Sometime in January 1997 the petitioner was arrested in connection with some other case. It is also stated that the petitioner is accused in six other police cases apart from the, present case. While in custody in connection with some other cases since January 1997, the petitioner was shown arrested in connection with this case also on 23-4-1997. Though in course of time of the petitioner was granted bail so far as other cases are concerned his prayers for bail in this case were rejected on large number of occasions by the courts below as also by this court. Therefore, the petitioner is in custody in connection with this case alone for about ten months since 23-4-1997. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is in custody for more than a year since January 1997 because of his arrest in connection with some other police cases and subsequently. in connection with this case. Further grievance of the petitioner is that though he is in custody for about ten months since 23-4-1997 in connection with this case alone and the charge-sheet was filed on or about 3-4-1996 yet he has not been furnished with copies of the charge-sheet statements of witnesses and other relevant documents which are likely to be relied upon by the prosecution in course of trial. For falure of the committing court to provide the petitioner with the aforesaid documents the petitioner could not make effective representation against his continued detention and in support of his various applications before the Courts below as also to this Court for his release on bail. In these circumstances, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail again in this court. ( 4 ) WE have heard Mr. Biplab Mitra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. S. Moitra, the learned Addi. Public Prosecutor at length. In these circumstances, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail again in this court. ( 4 ) WE have heard Mr. Biplab Mitra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. S. Moitra, the learned Addi. Public Prosecutor at length. The learned Addi. P. P. has produced the Case Diary. ( 5 ) IN brief, the learned Addi. P. P. inter alia contended the following grounds for rejecting this application: (i) Very recently about 2 months ago 27-11-1997 a Division Bench of this court rejected similar application of the petitioner for bail. That apart, prior thereto on as many as three earlier occasions similar applications of the petitioner for bail were turned down by this court. As four successive applications of the petitioner were rejected by this court, present application for his bail cannot be entertained in the absence of any new development or change of circumstances. In this regard, the learned Addi. P. P. has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Huddikota Subba Ra Qi; (ii) the petitioner is involved in as many as six other police cases including this case and he is a notorious criminal. If he is released on bail he is likely to perpetrate similar crimes again; (iii) there is ample evidence in the case diary including statements of large number of eye witnesses alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner is the principal offender and he himself fired from his revolver at the deceased and killed him at the spot; (iv) the petitioner could not be furnished with copies of the charge-sheet and other relevant documents as the petitioner could not be produced before the committing court due to his alleged illness on various dates since 27-12-1997 which were fixed by the said court for this purpose; (v) the petitioner was absconder and he could not be arrested during investigation The petitioner could be shown arrested in connection with this case long after charge-sheet was filed only when he was in custody in connection with some other case. The petitioner cannot claim bail as of right as his case is not covered by provision to Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. Aforesaid is the sum and substance of the submission of the learned Addi. P. P. He, therefore, submitted that the petition be dismissed in limine. The petitioner cannot claim bail as of right as his case is not covered by provision to Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. Aforesaid is the sum and substance of the submission of the learned Addi. P. P. He, therefore, submitted that the petition be dismissed in limine. ( 6 ) IN view bf proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr. P. C. , is no charge-sheet is filed within 60/90 days of detention, as the case may be, court is bound to release an accused on bail irrespective of merit of the case. This provision is an innovation of the new Code and is intended to speedup investigation so that a person does not have to languish unnecessarily in prison. The court has no discretion in this matter. However, in the cases not covered by the provision to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr. P. C. , an accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right. When an accused is arrested after the charge-sheet is filed or when the charge-sheet is filed before expiry of 90/60 days of detention, as the case may be proviso to Section 167 (2) Cr. P. C. ceases to apply. In such, a situation prayer for bail can be considered only on merit and not as a matter of right. These are the well settled principles governing the law relating to bail at a stage subsequent to the filing of charge-sheet. ( 7 ) ONE of the contentions of the learned Addi. P. P. which he agitated most vigorously is that on as many, as four earlier occasions Division Bench of this court rejected the petitionerts application for bail on merit: Last such order was passed on 27-11-1997. Since then little more than 2 months time, has elapsed. The petitioner could not point out any change of circumstances or new development during, this intervening period. Therefore, there is no scope for this court now to hear this application afresh on merit: ( 8 ) BUT from the materials placed before us. Since then little more than 2 months time, has elapsed. The petitioner could not point out any change of circumstances or new development during, this intervening period. Therefore, there is no scope for this court now to hear this application afresh on merit: ( 8 ) BUT from the materials placed before us. It appears that the petitioner is in custody for about ten months since 23-4-1997, All these months the petitioner was regularly produced before the committal court on every remand date except on few occasions since last part of December 1997 when the petitioner fell seriously ill and he was under going treatment in the jail hospital and subsequently, due to aggravated nature of his illness the petitioner had to be shifted to SSKM/pg Hospital on 27-12-1997 and since then he is undergoing treatment as an indoor patient in the said hospital. Therefore, since 27-12-1997 the petitioner, could not be produced before the Committing Magistrate on remand dates. But prior thereto, the petitioner was regularly produced before Committing Magistrate on every remand date continuously for about eight months since 23-4-1997 till first half of last December and yet he could not be furnished with copies of charge-sheet, statements of witnesses etc. That apart, charge-sheet was filed on or about 3-4-1996, and two years time has elapsed since then. Despite all, these committing Court could not furnish the petitioner with copies of charge-sheet and other relevant papers. ( 9 ) IN these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner is certainly right when he contended that for want or all these papers the petitioner could not make effective representation in the courts below or in this court against his continued detention while moving his countless applications for bail. An application for bail after submission of charge-sheet has to be decided on merit. In the absence of these papers the petitioner could not make any effective representation in respect of merit of the case against him while moving his various applications for bail at different point of times before the Courts below as well as before this Court. Therefore, the petitioner was not given fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing as regards his application for bail. A citizen cannot be deprived of his personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. Such procedure must be just, fair and reasonable. Therefore, the petitioner was not given fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing as regards his application for bail. A citizen cannot be deprived of his personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. Such procedure must be just, fair and reasonable. Procedure so far followed in respect of the petitioner was totally unjust, unfair and unreasonable. As the petitioner could not make effective representation against his continued detentions on merit due to absence of all these papers, it must be held that the petitioner was not given a just; fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing and for all practical purposes the petitioner remained virtually unheard on merit of the case against him. Therefore, the order dated 27-11-1997 passed by this court rejecting the petitionerts prayer for bail cannot be said to be an order on merit. Under the circumstances, we are left with no option but to decide this application after thorough perusal of the Case, Diary on merit as far as possible though we know that as the petitioner has not, yet been furnished with the aforesaid papers. This version will remain sub sequentially unheard as regards merit of the case. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, we must mention here that in, support of his contention the learned Addi. P. P. relied upon a decision of the Apex Court, in the State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikoto Subba Rao (supra ). We do not like to embark upon an elaborate discussion of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court for the sake of brevity except that in view of the aforesaid circumstances of the case the decision of the Apex Court cited by the learned Addi. p. p. is not at all applicable in this case. The facts of that case as decided by the Apex Court at the that successive bail applications preferred by the accused were rejected by the High Court by a common order. Within twp days thereafter another application filed by the same accused for bail was allowed by another Judge. In these circumstances, the Apex Court held that when successive applications were rejected on merit by the High Court within a short period thereafter another Judge should not have allowed similar application for bail. Within twp days thereafter another application filed by the same accused for bail was allowed by another Judge. In these circumstances, the Apex Court held that when successive applications were rejected on merit by the High Court within a short period thereafter another Judge should not have allowed similar application for bail. ( 11 ) IN the instant case, the application of the petitioner for bail was last rejected on 27-11-1997 and that reaction was not on merit in view of our aforesaid conclusions and reasons. That apart, meanwhile, more than 2 months time has already elapsed, since the order dated 27-11-1997 was passed by this Court. Furthermore, by that order this Court also directed to commit the case of the petitioner-within, a period of one month and yet the case could not be committed to the Court of Sessions for reasons already stated in this order hereinabove. ( 12 ) WE have perused the Case Diary thoroughly. In fact, we had to adjourn this case for two days so that we can peruse the Case Diary thoroughly. We find from the charge-sheet that, there, are in all 45 charge-sheet witnesses. Out of them there are about 26 eye witnesses. We have perused the statement of all these witnesses. We find that except one alleged eye witness none of the other eye witnesses even mentioned the name of the present petitioner. There is absolutely no other circumstance in the case Diary against the petitioner. Investigation in this case started since registration of the F. I. R. on 3-1-1996. Towards the end of the investigation few days before charge-sheet was filed statement of one Sk. Ajgar was recorded by the 1. 0. under Section 161 Cr. P. C. on 15-3-1996. Charge-sheet was filed on or about 3-4-1996, Prior to recording of the statement of Sk. Ajgar on 15-3-1996 there was absolutely no material in, the Case Diary against the petitioner. Therefore this statement of Sk. Ajgar was recorded about 2 months after the commencement of the investigation pursuant to registration of the F. I. R. That a part, this witness is not a local resident of the place where the incident occurred. The incident occurred at or about 9- 10 p. m. Sk. Ajgar is a resident of another place called Bangal Para under Sonarpur P. S. That place is quite far away from the place of occurrence. The incident occurred at or about 9- 10 p. m. Sk. Ajgar is a resident of another place called Bangal Para under Sonarpur P. S. That place is quite far away from the place of occurrence. We think these circumstances are enough for holding that the petitioner in fact deserved bail on merit. It may not be proper on our part to proceed further and express any opinion as to the veracity of the statement of Sk. Ajgar, as it is not the trial stage. If we make any further observation as regards inherent merit of the case against, the petitioner, it may prejudice this or that party in course of the trial and for this reason we refrain ourselves from making any further comment. ( 13 ) IT is stated by the learned Addi. P. P. that the petitioner remained absconder for along time. We find that the statement of Sk. Ajgar was recorded only a few days before, charge-sheet was filed. As a matter of fact, name of the petitioner did not figure in course of the investigation before statement of Sk. Ajgar was recorded and, therefore, there was no occasion for the investigation agency to make any attempt to arrest the petitioner after going through the Case Diary we find that as a matter of fact police made no attempt to arrest the petitioner in course of the investigation. That apart the committing Court did not take any step for exhausting the provisions of Cr. P. C. for procuring attendance of an absconder. We are therefore, constrained to hold that the petitioner was shown as an absconder in the charge-sheet without any justification whatsoever. It is also contended that the petitioner is involved in series of other criminal cases and he is a notorious criminal. In this regard we are constrained to observe that if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to bail in the instant case on its inherent merit his involvement in some other criminal cases cannot be a ground for rejecting his prayer for bail. His involvement in some other criminal cases may be a valid ground for rejecting his prayer for ball if it is found that in the instant case the petitioner does not deserve bail on merit and there are credible materials against him. His involvement in some other criminal cases may be a valid ground for rejecting his prayer for ball if it is found that in the instant case the petitioner does not deserve bail on merit and there are credible materials against him. ( 14 ) IN these circumstances; we are constrained to hold that we are left with no option but to allow this petition. ( 15 ) ACCORDINGLY, we allow the same and direct that the petitioner shall he forthwith released on bail of Rs. 10,000/-with one local surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Alipore. Bail Application allowed.