Mange Ram vs State of Haryana

Sat Pal, J.

This is an application filed by the petitioner under Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the Code), wherein it has been prayed that the petitioner be admitted to bail till the decision of the case.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the F.I.R. are that on 21st March, 1993, one Anant Ram caught hold of deceased, Rakesh Kumar and Mange Ram (petitioner) who was having lathi in his hand, gave a blow at his head with an intention to kill and as a result of which blood started coming out and Rakesh Kumar fell down unconsciously. As a result of the lathi blow given by the petitioner, Rakesh Kumar succumbed to his injuries, and FIR, under Sections 302/305/148 Indian Penal Code, was registered at police station Mahesh Nagar, District Ambala, against the petitioners and other accused. Charge in the case was framed on 8th June, 1991. Two prosecution witnesses were examined on 15th April, 1994.

Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the charge was framed on 8th June, 1993 and so far only two prosecution witnesses have been examined. He further submitted that no adjournment was sought on behalf of the petitioner after the charge was framed. She, therefore, contended that the trial was not likely to be concluded, and as such, the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail. In support of her contention, she placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994(2) RCR 467 and a judgment of Delhi High Court in Kirpal Singh Virdi v. State, 1994(3) RCR 291 .

Mr. Goripuria, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, further submitted that the alleged delay in the trial was not on the ground of any negligence on the part of the prosecution. He further submitted that the case had to be adjourned on certain occasions as there was no Presiding Officer and further one of the coaccused who was on bail, had expired and the case had to be adjourned for verification of the fact of death.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. As stated hereinabove, the charge was framed on 8th June, 1993, and statements of two witnesses were recorded on 15th April, 1994. From the orders which have been reproduced in this petition, I find that on 31st May, 1994, 10 prosecution witnesses were present but they could not be examined on that day as the Bar had suspended work and the learned public prosecutor had also filed an application for adjournment on the ground that the police file which was sent to this Court was received by him on that very day. Thereafter the case was adjourned on 9th July, 1994, 23rd August, 1994 and 12th September, 1994 as no Presiding Officer had been posted. On 9th September, 1994, the case had to be adjourned for verification of the fact of death of coaccused Anant Ram, who was earlier on bail. The report regarding death of the said coaccused was received on 13th February, 1995, after which the case had to be adjourned on a few occasions. Now the case is fixed for 29th May, 1995 for the remaining evidence.

From the facts stated herein above, it is clear that almost all the witnesses were present on 31st May, 1994, but they could not be examined on that day as the lawyers had suspended the work and the learned public prosecutor had also requested for an adjournment as the police file was received by him on the same date. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and the gravity of the offence, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to bail to this stage. Accordingly, the petition for grant of bail is rejected.

However, I direct that the learned Presiding Officer shall dispose of the case on priority basis, preferably within six months from the next date of hearing, i.e. 29th May, 1995. I further direct the prosecution to produce all the remaining witnesses on the next date of hearing before the trial Court, i.e. 29th May, 1995.