JUDGMENT 1. - In this fifth bail petition in a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the contention of the accused petitioner is that there is unreasonable delay in trial and the petitioner cannot be put to long incarceration. The prosecution submitted a long list of 53 witnesses and only 37 witnesses have been examined so far which shows that the trial is likely to consume more time. In view of the constitutional right of speedy trial guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution he is entitled to be released on bail. I was taken through the earlier orders passed by me and the order sheets of the trial court. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor with the assistance of counsel for the complainant opposed the bail petition. 3. I have pondered over the rival submissions and carefully weighed the material on record. 4. Article 21 of the Constitution of India clarifies and crystallises the general principle that no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except according to procedure established by law. Speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. It is the fundamental right both on principle and precedent that the trials to all criminal' prosecutions of all offences, irrespective of their nature, should be speedy. Slow justice is the anti-thesis of decent and fair procedure provided in constitution of India. But where the delay in defeating a speedy trial has been occasioned by the absconding of the accused or by other obstructive and delaying tactics adopted by him by resorting to a series of untenable proceedings, these factors would necessarily have to be noticed for determining the issue of the denial of the constitutional right. Accused being substantially and primarily responsible for occasioning the delay must be deemed to have waive right to speedy trial in the case. Criminal proceeding carried out after an inordinate delay which did not arise from the default of the accused nor the same is occasioned by any extraordinary or exceptional reason is violation of Articie 21 which guarantees speedy trial. The matter of bail is not merely a procedural right but a substantive fundamental right as engrafted in Article 21. 5. Criminal proceeding carried out after an inordinate delay which did not arise from the default of the accused nor the same is occasioned by any extraordinary or exceptional reason is violation of Articie 21 which guarantees speedy trial. The matter of bail is not merely a procedural right but a substantive fundamental right as engrafted in Article 21. 5. I deem it necessary to refer at this juncture the provisions contained in Rules 42 and 43 of the General Rules (Criminal) 1980 which provide thus:- "42. Allotment of days Sessions Cases.- Sessions cases should be disposed of with the greatest possible expedition. Sessions Judge should reserve particular number of days in a week for session work. In cases where the Sessions Judge decides to proceed under Section 228(1)(b) of the Code, he shall after recording the plea of the accused, shall fix the date for the evidence of the prosecution and may, on the application of the prosecution, issue process forthwith for compellig the attendance of witnesses or the production of any document or other thing. 43. Expeditious disposal of Sessions Cases.- Sessions trials should ordinarily be held in order in which commitments are made. The Presiding Officer may however exercise his discretion in the matter of giving priority to certain cases particularly cases involving capital sentence subsequently received or where the accused is in jail. Once a Sessions trial is opened the Sessions Judge shall see that it is disposed of in the same session and not adjourned to next session. The sessions cases shall be taken up day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined and discharged. The Sessions Judge shall take necessary steps to get the summons served on the witnesses in time and if necessary the Superintendent of Police of the district may be asked to make special efforts to secure the attendance of the witnesses. A sessions trial shall not be adjourned or postponed except in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing." 6. A look at the aforequoted rules demonstrates that the Sessions Judge is expected to dispose of the sessions cases with greatest possible expeditions. Special efforts should be made by him for securing the attendance of the witnesses. A sessions trial shall not be adjourned or postponed except in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing." 6. A look at the aforequoted rules demonstrates that the Sessions Judge is expected to dispose of the sessions cases with greatest possible expeditions. Special efforts should be made by him for securing the attendance of the witnesses. In the instant case as already noticed thirty seven prosecution witnesses have already been examined and on a close scrutiny of the proceedings of the trial Court it appears that on March 1, 2000 an application supported by affidavit was moved on behalf of the petitioner seeking stay of the trial Court's proceedings on the ground that order of framing charge was assailed by the petitioner in the High Court. Trial Court however did not stay the proceedings. Again on March 2, 2000 counsel for the accused sought time to cross examine witness Ram Chandra who was present in the Court. 7. During the course of arguments, I was told that the investigating officer of the case has gone abroad and the prosecution is deliberately delaying the proceedings of the case and application for recalling the prosecution witness has also been filed by the Public Prosecutor. 8. As the petitioner is in custody since June 26, 1999 the learned trial Court should ask the Superintendent of Police of the district to make special efforts for securing the attendance of the witnesses. While dismissing third bail petition of the petitioner on December 7, 1999 I directed the trial Court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible but it is evident that the petitioner himself was not interested in early disposal of the case as on March 1, 2000 he moved an application making a request to stay the proceedings. In view of this I do not see any extraordinary or exceptional reason in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. I find no merit in the bail petition. It is accordingly dismissed. But looking to the fact that the petitioner is in custody for a period of more than nineteen months, I direct the learned trial Court to dispose of the case with greatest possible expedition preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order.Application dismissed. *******