AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 284 wordsSandeep Sharma, J
Having perused status report filed by the respondent-State, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition,
with liberty to file afresh at appropriate stage, if so required and desired.
Perusal of status report reveals that police at the time of effecting recovery allegedly associated two independent witnesses namely Anil and
Ayush. Statement of one of the witness namely Anil stands recorded, wherein he has not supported the case of the prosecution, whereas statement of
another witness namely Ayush is yet to be recorded and the matter has been fixed by the court below for further proceedings on 23.2.2021.
Consequently, in view of the aforesaid, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. However, having taken note of the fact
that petitioner is behind bars for more than three years, deems it fit to direct the court below to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a
period of six months. Besides above, court below is directed to examine/record the statement of another eye witness namely Ayush at the first
instance either on 23.2.2021 or on a date to be fixed by it so that freedom of the petitioner is not curtailed for an indefinite period. This Court on
judicial as well as administrative side, has been repeatedly advising the courts below to conclude the trial of under trials on top most priority so that
their freedom is not curtailed for an indefinite period. Needless to say, prosecution shall render all assistance to the court below, enabling it to do the
needful well within the stipulated period. Registry is directed to apprise the court below with regard to passing of the instant order.