Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 174 (PAT)

Kedar Pandey v. State of Bihar

2005-02-17

body2005
ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Syed Rizwanul Haque, the A.P.P. representing the State. 2. This bail petition, appears to be one of the countless cases that expose the ineffectualness of the criminal justice delivery system in this State, and the facts and circumstances in which it is filed, it practically forces the hand of the court. 3. The petitioner along with several other accused persons is facing trial for offences, inter alia, punishable under section 302 of the Penal Code. The occurrence took place on 11.10.2000 and the F.I.R. of the case was lodged by one Parshuram Kuer, the brother of the deceased Murli Kuer. According to the F.I.R., another accused in the case Hari Singh fired the first shot at Murli Kuer from his rifle. That shot hit him on the head and he fell down. Thereafter the other accused, including the petitioner made indiscriminate firing from their respective weapons as a result of which the body of Murli Kuer was riddled with shots. 4. The petitioner is in custody from 19.2.2001. 5. In the first round the bail petitions filed by different accused, including Hari Singh and the present petitioner, were dismissed by the court having regard to the allegations made in the F.I.R. The prayer for bail on behalf of the petitioner was first rejected by order, dated 18.10.2001 in Cr. Mis. No.19685 of 2001. The prayer for bail on behalf of Hari Singh was similarly rejected by order, dated 8.5.2002 in Cr. Misc. No. 19573 of 2001. 6. Then started the trial proceedings and the chronic delay that is the bane of criminal trials or for that matter any judicial proceedings in this State. 7. Hari Singh against whom the allegation was that he fired the first shot from his rifle hitting the deceased on his head, felling him down on the ground was granted bail by this court by order, dated 19.3.2004 in Cr. Misc. No. 2116 of 2004. From that bail order, a copy of which is at Annexure 3, it appears that one of the Hon'ble-Judges of this court deemed fit to allow him the privilege of bail on the sale ground of long incarceration as an under-trial. 8. Misc. No. 2116 of 2004. From that bail order, a copy of which is at Annexure 3, it appears that one of the Hon'ble-Judges of this court deemed fit to allow him the privilege of bail on the sale ground of long incarceration as an under-trial. 8. Encouraged by the grant of bail to Hari Singh whom the petitioner describes as the "main assailant" in the case, he renewed his prayer for bail in Cr. Misc. No.4406 of 2004. In that case, apart from taking the plea of grant of bail to Hari Singh, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there was no likelihood of his conviction because no evidence against him had come before the trial court. It was submitted that till that stage six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Though some of them (two or three) had stated in their respective examinations-in-chief that they had seen the petitioner fleeing away from the P.O., in cross examination they had completely denied having witnessed the occurrence. That bail petition was placed before me and in course of its hearing when it was suggested that it would be proper for the petitioner to come out on his acquittal on conclusion of the trial, it was stated on his behalf that the trial proceedings had stalled since on a petition filed by the prosecution the court had summoned for examination two more witnesses who were not even named in the charge-sheet. Against that order the accused had come to this court in a Quashing petition and the matter remained at that stage. 9. The second bail petition filed by the petitioner being Cr. Misc. No. 4406 of 2004, was, however, rejected by me by order, dated 9.8.2004 subject, however, to the direction to the trial court to take all steps, if need be coercive ones, to ensure an expeditious conclusion of the trial. 10. The petitioner has once again renewed his prayer. It is obvious that the trial is yet far from concluded. In the mean while two more prosecution witnesses have been examined and in the quashing petition filed by the petitioner notices have been issued to the opp. party. In the mean while another development has taken place and it is that another accused in the case Uday Kuer alias Uday Narain Kuer has been granted bail by order, dated 7.12.2004. in Cr. Misc. party. In the mean while another development has taken place and it is that another accused in the case Uday Kuer alias Uday Narain Kuer has been granted bail by order, dated 7.12.2004. in Cr. Misc. No. 34425 of 2004. From the bail order it appears that he was released on bail solely on the ground that Hari Singh against whom there was the main allegation in the F.I.R. was earlier granted bail by this court. The position that emerges, thus, is that out of seven accused named in H e F.I.R., five are on bail. It may, thus, be seen that though in the F.I.R. there were direct allegations against the accused, they are getting out on bail one by one due to the inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and since the so called main accused Hari Singh was earlier granted bail by this court. 11. Though I might not have been personally inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, I am constrained to do so because refusal to grant bail to him alone would appear hightly anamolous and in breach of the principle of judicial consistency. 12. The petitioner Kedar Pandey is, therefore, directed to be released on bail in Sessions Trial No. 438 of 2002 arising out of Kesariya P.S. Case No. 98 of 2000 on furnishing bail bond of rupees eight thousand with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, East Champaran, Motihari.