IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42680 of 2009 SATTAN RAM, son of Jag Ram, resident of Village – Chapkahia, P.S. Gobind Ganj, District – East Champaran Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4/ 03.03.2010 Heard Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, APP for the State. Though the petitioner is an accused in a case instituted for offences under sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, but there is no eye witness of actual occurrence of killing the deceased. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 15.2.2005 and more than five years have elapsed since then, but the trial of the petitioner has not concluded as yet and there is no chance of its conclusion in near future. Present case is glaring instance of utter callousness and indifference of our legal and judicial system to the under trial prisoners incarcerating in the jails. It is one case, which shocks the judicial conscience of the court that the petitioner has been kept in jail for more than five years, but no sincere endeavor has been made either by the prosecution or by the learned trial court to conclude the trial of the petitioner at an early date. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.2, Motihari, it transpires that in the present case, charges were framed against the petitioner as far back as on 23.8.2005 and till date only one witness has been produced by the prosecution. - 2 - Evidence of the sole prosecution witness produced in the trial court has been brought on record as Annexure 2 to this petition and said witness has been declared hostile as he has not supported the prosecution case against the petitioner. Now, it is well settled that speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused implicit under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Apparently, in the present case, there has been violation of fundamental right of the petitioner. In similar circumstances, the Apex Court had noticed the shocking state of affairs in justice delivery system in the State of Bihar in the case of Kadra Pehadiya and others Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 939. I am tempted to quote some observations made by the Apex Court in the said case, which reads as under: “……….There is something wrong with the entire system. How can any civilized society tolerate a legal and judicial system which keeps a person in jail for three years without even commencing his trial. But the atrocity does not end here: more is yet to come. Though the trial of the petitioners commenced on 30th August, 1977 it was merely a symbolic commencement, for it never proceeded further and it has not yet made any progress. The petitioners appeared in the Sessions Court on 30th August, 1977 but thereafter, Dr. Vasudha Dhagamwar says, they have not been in Court again. Three more years have passed but they are still rotting in jail, not knowing what is happening to their case. They are perhaps reconciled to their fate, living in a small world of their own cribbed, cabined and confined within the four walls of the prison. The outside world just does not exist for them. The Constitution has no meaning and significance and human rights, no relevance for them. It is a crying shame upon our adjudicatory system which keeps men in jail for years on end without a trial. We had occasion in Hussainara Khatoon’s case (1980) 1 SCC 81: (AIR 1979 SC - 3 - 1360) to criticize this shocking state of affairs and we hoped that after the anguish expressed and the severe strictures passed by us, the justice system in the State of Bihar would improve and no one shall be allowed to be confined in jail for more than a reasonable period of time, which we think cannot and should not exceed one year for a Sessions trial, ……….” In Kadra Pehadiya’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Sessions triable cases should be disposed of within a reasonable period of time and that should not exceed more than one year. In the present case, charge was framed on 23.8.2005 and more than four and half years have passed since then and only one witness has been examined by the prosecution till date. Undue delay in disposal of trial, without there being any fault on the part of the accused, itself constitutes a cause for grant of bail to the accused. In the facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get the privilege of bail by this court, since refusal of the prayer of the petitioner for bail would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, though has opposed the prayer for bail, but has not disputed the aforesaid factual state of affairs regarding trial of the petitioner. Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, let petitioner above named be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10000/(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional - 4 - Sessions Judge, F.T.C. II, Motihari in S.Tr. No. 435 of 2005 (arising out of Gobindganj P.S. Case No. 18 of 2005) subject to the condition that the petitioner must remain present on each and every date either by appearing personally or through his lawyer. The petitioner should also give all cooperation for early conclusion of trial. If he absents on two consecutive dates without any valid reason, then the court below shall be at liberty to cancel his bail bonds. Trial court is also directed to take all possible steps to conclude the trial of the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Anil/ (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)