Criminal Misc.-M No.18733 of 2009 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 09, 2009 Sunil Sharma ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate and Mr.Gursimran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab, for the State. Ms.Anju Sharma Kaushik, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINH, J. The prayer made under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. is for cancellation of bail granted to Akashdeep @ Ashu son of Harmesh Kumar. Respondent No.2 is an accused in FIR No.20 dated 9.2.2004 registered under Sections 302/34/120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Criminal Misc.-M No.18733 of 2009 (O&M) : 2 : Arms Act. Respondent No.2 was arrested and challan was presented against him on 19.4.2004. He had applied for bail which was considered by this court on 25.5.2009. Bail was granted by noticing that the FIR was registered on 9.2.2004 and that respondent No.2 was in custody since 13.2.2004. It was also observed that despite direction issued by this court to see the feasibility of expediting the trial, 2-1/2 years were taken to conclude the examination-in-chief of only one witness. The State counsel at that stage did not bring the correct factual position to the notice of this court and on instructions had stated that the witnesses could not be examined as on most of the occasions, the respondent could not be brought from jail. Considering that responsibility to produce the accused was that of the police and that trial was moving on a snail's pace, respondent No.2 was granted concession of bail. The present petitioner seeks cancellation of this bail by pleading that rather respondent and his co-accused are responsible for this delay and thus, can not be permitted to take advantage of their own act and conduct. Five years have gone passed, but the trial has hardly made any progress. Responsibility for this, as can be seen, primarily is that of the accused persons. There are six accused in this case and they have been adopting different modes and tactics to somehow get adjournment in this case even on those dates when the witnesses were present. The latest example in this regard can be had from the order dated 2.9.2009, copy of which is placed before me. The case has been adjourned on the request of a counsel of one of the accused Mohan Lal, who moved an application for adjournment on the ground that he is suffering from fever and is Criminal Misc.-M No.18733 of 2009 (O&M) : 3 : unable to conduct the case today. The counsel appearing for the remaining accused, three in number, also requested for adjournment on the ground that first cross-examination be completed by the counsel of Mohan Lal, who had sought the adjournment. Such a request was entertained and allowed. This may reflect a poor control by the Presiding Judge over the trial, but would give out the delaying tactics on the part of accused facing trial. Respondent No.2 and his co-accused have, thus, retarded the progress of the trial frustrating the prosecution. It may also need a notice that one of the co-accused Kuljinder Singh was granted bail by the trial court and considering that the concession of bail was being misused to prolong the trial, his bail was cancelled by this court. While doing so, this court noticed that Kuljinder Singh would reach the premises of the court and to obtain a medical certificate from a doctor,whose clinic was just outside the court and would produce the same before the court to seek exemption. It was obvious that such certificates were being managed because a person, who could reach the premises of the court had no reason to seek exemption on the medical ground being fit to reach the court premises. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to an order dated 12.12.2008, vide which the bail granted to Nardosh Dhand was cancelled to ensure speedy trial. The entire facts as appreciated and projected in this petition would clearly show that fair and speedy trial is a causality for which the responsibility is that of the accused persons. Had the correct facts been brought to the notice of this court, there was a Criminal Misc.-M No.18733 of 2009 (O&M) : 4 : chance that the bail to respondent No.2 may not have been granted. In any event, I am convinced that respondent No.2 and his co- accused are misusing the concession of bail. The bail granted to respondent No.2 as such cannot be allowed to continue. The same is withdrawn. The bail granted to respondent No.2 is, therefore, cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the court immediately. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana is directed to ensure compliance of this order to take respondent No.2 in custody. The petition is accordingly disposed of. September 09, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE