Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 259 (CHH)

Phillip Chand Goyal v. State of Chhattisgarh

2014-07-14

P.SAM KOSHY

body2014
ORDER Case of the applicants is that they are claiming bail not on the merits of the case but on the sole ground of not getting a speedy trial or in other words because of the delay in trial. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicants are said to have committed murder of the deceased in broad day light and the case was placed before the committal Court on 05.01.2013. The matter after committal was registered as Sessions Trial No.14/2013 by the Sessions Judge who thereafter vide order dated 23.01.2013 transferred the matter to be tried by the third Additional Sessions Judge. 3. From the facts which has been provided by the applicants in the bail application it is reflected that the charge has been framed against the applicants for the offence u/s 302/34 of IPC and 25 (1) (b) (B) of Arms Act. It is further reflected that the evidence in the instant case started on 25.03.2013 and till 28.09.2013 about 18 witnesses have been examined. Subsequently, as the Court was lying vacant, the trial could not progress any further and therefore the present applicants moved an application u/s 439 of Cr.P.C before the Court below for grant of bail which was rejected on 22.03.2014. Hence, the applicants have now filed the bail application before the High Court and through this bail application also counsel for the applicants prays for grant of bail to the applicants on the ground of delay in trial. 4. Counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2013 CRI.L.J. 1547 and in the matter of J. Jayalalithaa and others v. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 401. Counsel for the applicants submits that the case of the present applicants is squarely covered by the decision and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred two cases and that in the instant case also since there is a delay in the trial, the applicants may also be enlarged on bail. 5. Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Dy. 5. Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Dy. Advocate General representing the State opposing the bail application submits that in the instant case there are about 7-8 eye-witnesses and as per the case diary, they have all witnessed the present applicants assaulting the deceased and causing death by stabbing the deceased. Counsel for the State admits the fact that as of now the proceeding is stalled on account of the non availability of the Court as the earlier presiding Judge has been transferred to a different place and the new judge took charge only on 05.05.2014. He submits that since 05.05.2014, the proceeding has been initiated and the last date was fixed on 19.06.2014 and thereafter, the case is now fixed for evidence of the remaining witnesses on 26th July, 2014. State counsel after enquiry from the Public Prosecutor who was conducting the case has made a submission before the Court stating that in all there are 20 witnesses cited by the prosecution and out of these 20, 18 witnesses have already been examined and only two more witnesses are left to be examined that too one is a photographer and another is the Investigating Officer. Counsel for the State categorically submits that it is a case where there are many eye-witnesses to the incident who have already been examined and the only two remaining witnesses may have also examined very soon and therefore it is not a case where the applicants may be released on bail at this stage. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for either side and the evidences that are placed before me what are reflected from the documents is that in the instant case, the incident took place only on 29.09.2012, the present applicants were arrested on 30.09.2012, the charge-sheet was filed on 16.12.2012 and the matter was committed before the Sessions Court on 05.01.2013. On 14.01.2013, the Sessions Court took cognizance of the case and registered the case as Sessions Trial No.14/2013 and proceeded further with the trial. The date of examination of the last witness who has been examined in the instant case was on 28.09.2013 and thereafter the Presiding Judge was transferred in the month of September, 2013 and the new Presiding Officer has taken charge on 05.05.2014. Thereafter, the trial has again commenced and the next date of recording the evidence of remaining witnesses is fixed on 26.07.2014. 7. Thereafter, the trial has again commenced and the next date of recording the evidence of remaining witnesses is fixed on 26.07.2014. 7. Considering all these facts particularly the fact that the matter was registered before the Sessions Court only on 14.01.2013 and as such it cannot be said an inordinate delay of trial in the present case. Further from the proceeding it is also reflected that the delay of trial cannot be attributed on the prosecution as in the instant case the trial could not proceed because of the earlier Presiding Officer having been transferred and the new replacement being come after seven months. Therefore the prosecution cannot be held responsible in this case for the delay of trial for this seven months. 8. Further, the two judgments referred by the counsel for the applicants also would not come to the rescue of the present applicants on account of the fact that in the case of Babubhai (supra), the offence was of the year 2005 and the charge-sheet was filed on 2006. Subsequently, after examination of 134 witnesses in the said case, an application which was allowed and a co-accused was added to the trial. Thereafter, on a challenge being made by the said co-accused, the trial got stalled and it was under those circumstances, the Supreme Court had expressed this concern on the question of speedy trial. Such is not the case in the instant matter where the incident itself of the year 2012, the case was registered before the Sessions Court in January, 2013 and till September, 2013, most of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and because of the Court fallen vacant, the trial could not proceed for a period of 5-7 months, therefore the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Babubhai (supra) cannot be made applicable in the instant case. 9. Similarly, in the case of J. Jayalalithaa(supra) also, the offence was registered against the petitioners therein in the year 1995-96 and the petitioners had put to challenge an order dated 10.09.2013 passed by the Govt. of Karnataka on the ground that issuance of the said order would further delay the trial. 9. Similarly, in the case of J. Jayalalithaa(supra) also, the offence was registered against the petitioners therein in the year 1995-96 and the petitioners had put to challenge an order dated 10.09.2013 passed by the Govt. of Karnataka on the ground that issuance of the said order would further delay the trial. Under these circumstances, the matter was considered by the High Court, subsequently, by the Supreme Court and the guidelines in respect of fair and speedy trial were discussed and decided in the said case which again cannot be made applicable in the instant case for the reason that the facts in the instant case are entirely different from that of J. Jayalalithaa (supra) case. In the instant case, from the dates as mentioned by the applicants in their bail application it would show that except for the period for which the Court was lying vacant on account of the non availability of the Presiding Officer, there has been no deliberate inordinate delay on the part of the prosecution in early conclusion of the trial and that after taking charge of the new Presiding Judge on 05.05.2014, the trial has further proceeded and now the case is fixed for evidence of the remaining witnesses on 26.07.2014. 10. Considering the total facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that 18 witnesses out of 20 cited by the prosecution having already been examined and that only two witnesses i.e. a photographer and the Investigating Officer remains to be examined, I am of the opinion that in the present case it cannot be said that there is an inordinate delay in conducting the trial. Further keeping in view the submissions made by the State counsel that there are 7-8 eyewitness to the incident, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case where at this stage the application u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the present applicants can be entertained. 11. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is rejected.