Randhir Singh vs State of Haryana

Dr. Sarojnet Saksena, J.

Mr. Ghai has strongly stressed that this Sessions case is pending since 1994; the petitioner is in custody; he was admitted in hospital also because of his ailment; therefore, he submits that bail be granted to the petitioneraccused.

Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, submits that the Sessions case is at the evidence stage. Now 6.5.1998 is fixed for recording the remaining evidence of prosecution. The petitioner is the main accused, who fired from his rifle hitting Jagat Singh on the back of his head; therefore, during the pendency of the trial, he be not released on bail.

Considering the long pendency of the Sessions case, report was called for from the trial Judge, Shri C.R. Goel, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Panipat has sent his report. From perusal of this report, it is evident that the charge was framed in this case on 11.10.1994. The first date for recording the prosecution evidence was 7/8.2.1995. On 7.2.1995 accused Pawan Kumar was absent; therefore, prosecution evidence could not be recorded and the case was adjourned to 27.3.1995, then to 8.5.1995 and then to 19.5.1995. On last two dates, report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was awaited. On 19.5.1995 again accused Ram Kumar was absent; he surrendered before the court on 13.6.1995; the case was already adjourned to 21.22/11.1995. On 21.11.1995 five PWs were examined; five were given up; report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was tendered in evidence and the case was adjourned to 25/26.3.1996. On 25.3.1996 as accused Randhir was not produced from jail, the case was adjourned to 26.3.1996. On this date also, accused Randhir was not produced though witnesses were present but the defence counsel declined to crossexamine the witnesses; therefore, the case was adjourned to 21.5.1996 for securing presence of accused Randhir. On this date as accused Randhir appeared, the case was adjourned to 17/18.10.1996 for recording the prosecution evidence. On 17.10.1996 some prosecution witnesses were present, but accused Ram Kumar did not turn up; his bail bonds were cancelled and he was ordered to be summoned for 14.11.1996. On 14.11.1996 accused Ram Kumar surrendered before the court, he was taken in custody; Randhir was also produced; therefore, the case was adjourned to 6/7.8.1997 for recording the remaining evidence of prosecution. On 6.8.1997 the Presiding Officer was on leave; therefore, the case was taken up on 7.8.1997. On this date, one prosecution witness tendered his affidavit into evidence; no other witness was present; therefore, the case was adjourned to 3/4.12.1997. On 3.12.1997 one PW was present; two witnesses were given up; other witnesses though served were not present and the case is adjourned to 6.5.1998.

In his report, the learned trial Judge has also catalogued all types of cases which are pending on his Board. The learned Judge may be having many cases on his Board, but he is required to give special attention to this murder case, which is pending since 1994. It is also a fact that the trial could not be concluded because of one reason or the other and also because of the fact that the learned defence counsel declined to crossexamine the witnesses; therefore, fault lies with all these three branches. Neither the Court is taking keen interest to see that long dates for adjournments are not given nor any effort is made to conclude the trial. Even the defence is causing hindrance in smooth progress of the case. Now the prosecution is given enough time to produce all its witnesses on the dates on which the case is fixed for prosecution evidence.

Considering all the above facts, bail petition is declined but the trial Court is directed to record the statements of the remaining evidence of prosecution on 6.5.1998 on daytoday basis so that trial may be concluded by the end of May, 1998, but if on any particular date, defence counsel is not cooperating in the trial, then the learned trial Court is given liberty to conclude the trial by the end of July, 1998.

This order be conveyed to the trial Judge by the registry forthwith.

JUDGMENT accordingly.