IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22375 of 2008 GHOLTU MAHTO @ GOLTU MAHTO @ GOLU MAHTO Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 04/ 25.08.2008 Heard. Yet again instance as to how the Fast Track Courts of Bihar are working. The present petitioner is in custody for over six years in a case under Section 302 IPC. The charges were framed on 28th of February, 2003 as appears from the order of rejection passed by F.T.C. II, Samastipur. This court vide its order dated 10th of June, 2008 directed the learned Judge to submit the photo copies of the deposition it had recorded of the witnesses. Those are available at Flag ‘X’ and on perusal of the same; I find that five witnesses have been examined up to 5th of September, 2007. The first witness, who was hostile, was examined on 23rd of September, 2004, the second on 23rd of November, 2004, the third on 22nd of February, 2007 and the fourth on 5th of June, 2007. The doctor, who is the 5th witness, is the last witness, who was examined, as indicated as on the 5th of September, 2007. After direction there is again drought of witnesses. - 2 - The allegation is that the petitioner poured acid from a lota upon the deceased, which splashed over on some persons also, who were present there. The defence of the petitioner is that, as a matter of fact, the husband of the deceased had thrown acid upon her and others and during that process the deceased happened to have acid splashed over her, as a result of which, she was treated but died ultimately of septicemia. The petitioner was having acid burns as indicated by a discharge slip, which has been produced before me issued by the Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital and it is indicated that he remained there for six months, so as to be treated and recovering fully. The petitioner gave statement of his defence as to how he happened to have those injuries. While perusing the depositions placed only one fact was flashing in my mind that it is an example of high class insensitivity of a Judge towards suffering of a prison and also complete lack of appreciation of his judicial obligations and handing out quick and fair justice to a prisoner. Probably the Judges were living in an era prior to 26th of January, 1950 instead of working in post 26th of January, - 3 - 1950 era. This could be said on the snail’s speed they were moving on with the trial in Sessions Trial No. 271 of 2002. The Judges appear completely lacking in of doing a balancing act towards personal liberty of a prisoner and the constitutional guarantee of handing out quick and fair justice. This court issued at least four directions as it appears from Annexure -1 series as to when the trial court had to conclude the trial, but no Judge could meet out the time frame and appears lagging quite behind in concluding the trial. It is definitely futile to issue a fresh mandate to the court below for concluding the trial. Let petitioner Gholtu Mahto @ Goltu Mahto @ Golu Mahto be released from custody on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. II, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 271 of 2002 arising out of Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 80 of 2000. DKS/ (Dharnidhar Jha, J)