JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. In all the four writ applications the point involved is the same and the relief prayed by all the petitioners are also same and similar and Mr. Mazumdar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of all the petitioners has advanced his argument in common. Accordingly, all the writ applications were taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The prayer of the petitioners in these writ applications is for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings and the prosecution against them in connection with G.R. No. 256 of 1991 arising out of Jaridih P.S. Case No. 21 of 1991 registered under Sections 408, 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat only on the ground that their right to speedy trial as warranted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed. 3. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged on 19/03/1991 whereas the charge sheet was submitted against three accused persons on 30/09/1996 and, thereafter, on 07/01/2003 a supplementary charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners. It is submitted that the criminal proceeding has remained pending for more than 14 years without any fault on the part of the petitioners which has resulted in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the prosecution against the petitioners should be quashed. 4. The Supreme Court in the case of "Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Anr. " has held in sub-para-8 of paragraph-20 of the said judgment that the core of speedy trial is protection, against incarceration. An accused who has never been incarcerated can hardly complain. At any rate, he must show some other very strong prejudice. The right does not protect an accused from all prejudicial effects caused by delay. Its core concern is impairment of liberty. 5. In the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay (supra), the Apex Court has held that it is not possible in the very nature of things and present day circumstances to draw a time limit beyond which a criminal proceeding will not be allowed to go. Each case must be left to he decided on its own facts having regard to the principles enunciated in the said case. 6. Each case must be left to he decided on its own facts having regard to the principles enunciated in the said case. 6. In the case of "P. Ram Chandra Rao v. State of Karnataka ", the constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has affirmed the views expressed in Abdul Rehman Antulays case (supra) and over ruled the decision in the case of "Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar ". 7. Paragraph- 24 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case of P. Ram Chandra Rao (supra) is relevant to be noticed, which is quoted hereinbelow: Bars of limitation, judicially engrafted, are, no doubt, meant to provide a solution to the aforementioned problems. But a solution of this nature gives rise to greater problems like scuttling a trial without adjudication, stultifying access to justice and giving easy exit from the portals of justice. Such general remedial measures cannot be said to be apt solutions. For two reasons we hold such bars of limitation uncalled for and impermissible : first, because it tantamounts to impermissible legislation- an activity beyond the power which the Constitution confers on judiciary, and secondly, because such bars of limitation fly in the face of law laid down by Constitution Bench in A.K. Antulays case and, therefore, run counter to the doctrine of precedents and their binding efficacy. 8. There is no dispute of the facts that the petitioners never remained in custody in connection with the present case rather all of. them were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. 9. In view of the facts noticed above and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two decisions, in my view, no case at all for quashing of the prosecution on the ground of the delay in disposal of the trial or in terms of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is made out. 10. Accordingly, having found no merit, all the writ applications are hereby dismissed.