Baldev Singh vs State of Punjab

V.K Bali, J.

It is true that earlier in point of time prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail has been declined thrice over. It is also a fact that petitioner does not deserve bail on merits. However, every citizen has right of speedy trial and inasmuch as it does not appear possible in this case, the petitioner deserves concession of bail on that count alone.

Concededly, the petitioner has been in judicial lockup since December, 1994. While earlier rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for bail on 22.9.1995, this Court had ordered that the trial be expedited. Inasmuch as the trial could not be concluded for considerably long time, petitioner herein claims bail on the ground that he cannot be forced to languish in jail for indefinite time. To find out as to whether it was the petitioner or his coaccused, who were at fault in delaying the trial, report of the Sessions Judge was called for. The same has been received. By and large, the trial has been impeded for the reason that there is no Presiding Officer, who might conduct the trial as the one before whom the matter was, has since been promoted and posted as Sessions Judge. It is not known as to when successor of the earlier Presiding Officer will take over. The Sessions Judge clearly records in his report as under :

"This case now stands adjourned to 16.3.1996 for further proceedings. I am afraid that if no Presiding Officer is posted in this court there will be no progress."

Whereas, it is true that in a serious matter, like the one in hand bail should not be granted, it is also equally true that by keeping the trial postponed for indefinite time a citizen''s right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is curtailed. This Court, while balancing nongrant of bail in a serious case and no trial for indefinite period, would rather prefer to apply the principle so enunciated by the Apex Court in number of judgments that a citizen has a right of speedy disposal of trial. On that count alone and without going into the merits of the case and rather holding that petitioner does not deserve bail on merits, he is yet allowed bail to the satisfaction of CJM, Amritsar.

At this stage, Mr. Riar contends that prayer of coaccused of the petitioner, Nirmal Singh, has been declined today by an Hon''ble Judge of this Court. Suffice it to say that Nirmal Singh is the main accused, who fired the shot by which Ranjit Singh died. That apart, Mr. Riar has not been able to inform this Court as to whether the ground for nontrial of the petitioner was pressed into service or not before the Hon''ble Judge who declined bail to Nirmal Singh.