NOOR DIN Versus THE STATE

ORDER

The petitioner alongwith two others is accused of an offence against Section 302 read with Section 34 of the P.P.C. He was arrested on 4‑2‑1986 and since then, he has been in jail. The challan of the case was sent to the Court of Sessions on 27‑9‑19.80; on 8‑10‑1956, the case was adjourned sine die. The trial of the case commenced on 26‑3‑1958 and it is stated that the statements of seven formal witnesses have been recorded. The petitioner applied for bail on the ground that his detention in jail had been for more than two years and the trial has not concluded. By his order dated 11‑2‑1988, the learned trial Judge dismissed his petition on the ground that the case was fixed for trial on 20‑2‑1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on the record a copy of the order sheet; it shows that on 21‑2‑1988, Noor Din, petitioner, and Nazir Ahmad co -accused of the petitioner asked for adjournment on the ground that they had not engaged counsel. On the next date vii. 26‑3‑1958, the evidence of some witnesses was recorded and the case was adjourned to 27‑3‑1988. On that date, the statement of only one P.W. was recorded. It does not appear from the order dated 27‑3‑1988 why the statement of only one P.W. was recorded; the case was adjourned to 11‑4‑1988 because the parties' counsel stated that they would not be available earlier. On 11‑4‑1988, again the statement of only one P.W. could be recorded and the case was adjourned to 26‑4‑1988 again on the ground that the parties' counsel were not available earlier. On that date, adjournment was sought on behalf of Muhammad Aslam accused, for his counsel had met an accident. On 25‑5‑1988, to which date the case was adjourned, a prayer for adjournment was made on behalf of Muhammad Aslam accused and Noor Din, petitioner, on the ground that their counsel were not available.

2. From what has been stated above, it appears clearly that the learned trial Judge showed little regard for the ordinary rule which should govern such cases, namely, that the trial of the case should proceed from day to day. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his order, did not say while rejecting the petitioner's application that he was ro blame for the delay. If 1 may say so with respect, and this is a very sad reflection on the administration of justice, the reason for the delay is the non‑observance of the rule that such cases should proceed from day to day. 1, therefore, see no reason why the petitioner should be denied the benefit of Section 497, subsection (1) proviso (3) of the Cr.P.C. 1, therefore, allow the petitioner to be released on bail on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

S.A./N‑144/L

Bail allowed.