1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5563 of 2009 Baba @ Gabriel Hans Moben ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent ... Mr.Abhaykumar Apte for the applicant. Mrs.A.A. Mane APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 24th February 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant has been arrested on 30th October 1995 in connection with C.R. No. 48 of 1990 registered at Vithalwadi Police Station, District Thane and is facing trial. 3. It is the grievance of the applicant that though he has been in jail for a period of more than 14 years, State is not diligent in proceeding with the trial and the applicant is languishing in jail without the full trial. I am informed at the bar that 12 to 14 witnesses have so far been 2 examined. According to the learned APP, 12 more witnesses are yet to be examined. 4. Previously, the applicant had made an application through jail for expeditious hearing. On 7th October 2009 this Court had issued a direction for conducting the trial on day to day basis. Despite this direction trial has not proceeded with on day to day basis. By my order dated 5th January 2010, I called for the report from the Sessions Judge about trial. The learned District Judge-I and Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalyan has submitted his report vide letter dated 12th January 2010. Apart from a few days on which the learned Judge was on leave, substantial part of the delay is attributable to the State. The learned Sessions Judge has reported that during the month of October, the learned Spl. P.P appeared only on 4 days, in the month of November he appeared only on 2 days and in the month of December he appeared only on 4 days and therefore, the trial could not be completed. This shows that the State is not diligent in completing the trial. 5. In several decisions, the Apex Court has held that accused has a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for speedy trial. It is further held that accused should not be kept as an under trial prisoner for an indefinite period. The applicant is in custody for more than 14 years. The end of his trial is not in sight. In the circumstances, the least that can be done is to release the applicant on bail. 6. Learned APP appearing for the State submitted that applicant is a habitual offender and has been charged in other cases also. In Criminal 3 Application No.5065 of 2009, this Court (Coram V.M. Kanade, J) vide its order dated 4th December 2009 has granted bail to the applicant in other case on the ground of delay in trial. Even after taking instructions from the IO Mr.S.R. Chavan, CID Crime, Pune, learned APP was unable to give the details and numbers of the sessions cases alleged to be pending against the applicant. Obviously, this order of bail would operate only in respect of the present sessions case and would not affect if the custody of the applicant is required in any other case also. Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R Applicant be released on bail in connection with C.R.No. 48 of 1990 (Sessions Case No.219 of 1999 pending in the Sessions Court at Kalyan) on his executing P.R bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount, unless he is in custody or required in custody in any other offence. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)