ORDER
1. Out of seventeen accused committed to the Court of Sessions at Mandya, who stand trial for offences under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 read with S. 149, IPC, six of them have been released on bail on grounds including medical grounds and others were rejected bail by the Sessions Court as well as the Court finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that these accused persons are guilty of the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the order of this Court rejecting bail to the accused petitioners is dated 16-1-1990. This Court referred to the part played by the accused in the commission of the offence and pointed out that the common object of unlawful assembly on the night of 16-8-1989 was to commit the murder of one Honnaiah in his house and had gone near his house armed with choppers, clubs and stones. When Honnaiah was not to be found, they assaulted seven persons near that house with these weapons and caused injuries to them. Thereafter, they went to the bus stop expecting Honnaiah in a bus called Udayaranga which was to reach that place by 9-30 p.m., and when the bus arrived, A-7, A-10 and A-11 are alleged to have entered into it and when did not find Honnaiah but found one Gopaiah, he was assaulted there with choppers and clubs and dragged out of the bus. When one Chennamma a co-passenger attempted to rescue him, she was dragged out. When he was brought outside the bus, the other petitioners also assaulted him, as a result of which, he sustained 15 injuries, most of them were incised and cut wounds and the autopsy report disclosed that they could have been caused by sharp edged weapons. He died on the way to the hospital. A complaint was filed the same night at about 2-30 a.m. by one Kambaiah against these accused persons and a case came to be registered for the offences aforesaid. It was also stated that a complaint was filed by A-17, who was released on anticipatory bail for offences u/Ss. 324 and 307, IPC. But, now it is stated at the Bar that presently on the complaint of A-17 the substantive offence u/S. 326, IPC with other alleged offences of unlawful assembly and rioting have been subject matter of the charge-sheet against some of the prosecution witnesses. This Court thus found from the nature of the allegations made and the common object of unlawful assembly that the petitioners herein are not entitled to bail.
2. The case has now been committed to the Court of Sessions by the committal order dated 1-1-90 and so far it has not reached trial and charges were also not framed. For this reason invoking Art. 21 of the Constitution, the petitioners have now approached this Court with this petition that they be released on bail as it is not likely that the trial may not be concluded within reasonable time. In para 7 of the petition, it is stated that for more than one year and 8 months since the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions, the petitioners are in custody and petitioners 1 to 5 among them are in custody for a period of more than two years. They are not responsible for the delay. Having regard to the facts and circumstances including the pendency of other cases before the Sessions Court at Mandya, it is not reasonable to expect the trial of this case to be concluded in near future. The petitioners also refer to certain cases coming up before this Court wherein the accused were granted bail for the reason that the trial could not be concluded within a reasonable time.
3. In the objections filed by the State, it is stated that on merits fairly the bail petition has been rejected and with regard to the ground now urged having regard to the gravity of the offence alleged and the manner in which the petitioners have committed the murder of the deceased and caused grievous injuries to seven persons of the prosecution witnesses, the petitioners are not entitled to bail as there is likelihood of petitioners tampering the prosecution witnesses by threatening the eye witnesses and injured witnesses, thereby law and order problem is also likely to arise.
4. When it was stated in the petition that even charges have not been framed in that case, it was found necessary to call for the report of the learned Sessions Judge, Mandya and in his report dated 16-11-91 he has made certain revelations which were not to be found either in the petition or in the objections of the State. When a representation was made to him during his visit to the Central Prison at Mandya to enquire about the custody of the juvenile offenders in pursuances of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, one of the accused in this case made a representation for early hearing of the Sessions Case. Immediately he got the case advanced to take further steps and then it was brought to his notice that there was a counter case pending on the file of the J.M.F.C., Maddur in C.C. No. 667/90 on the initiation of A-17 – Jayaram. By its order dated 17-1-1991, the Committal Court declined to accede to the request of A-17 to commit the case and aggrieved by the order A-17 preferred a revision petition to his Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 33/91 and while allowing the same the Sessions Judge directed the Committal Magistrate to commit the case to the Sessions Court by his order dated 4-7-1991. It was for this reason that no further steps could be taken in S.C. 1/90 until the counter case also stood committed to his Court. On 26-10-91 as the learned Magistrate has not still committed the case, a direction was again issued that the Magistrate should advance the case – C.C. 667/90 and should commit the same in pursuance of the order in Crl.R.P. No. 33/91 within one month from the date of the order. A further direction was given that in the event of any of the accused being found absconding, case should be split up, and that the case relating to such of the accused present in the case be committed to his court. Having issued this direction, he reports that the present case now stands posted to 31-12-90 as the Public Prosecutor in his Court has informed the Court that steps would be taken to get another Public Prosecutor appointed to conduct the counter case when so committed. He further reports that many other custody matters committed subsequent to this case have since been disposed of and for the reasons stated above no progress could be made in the present case. It may be mentioned here that it was on 9-4-1991 that the learned Sessions Judge had visited the Central Jail as referred to above when such a representation was given to him.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Acharya has urged that apart from the merits for granting or refusing bail, this is a case wherein the trial has not been concluded with the reasonable time, and hence, this is a fit case wherein this Court at this stage could grant bail in view of the recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court in some of the cases in analogous situation. In particular, he invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kadra Pehadiya v. State of Bihar of the Judgment, the Supreme Court referred with approval to the decision rendered in Hussainara Khatoon’s case wherein the Supreme Court referred to the appalling state of affairs prevailing in the State of Bihar, in which young lads of 12 or 13 years had been languishing in jail for over eight years for a crime which perhaps ultimately they may be found not to have committed. Similarly, reference has been made to some of the decisions referred to by this Court in Crl. Petition No. 692/91 and in Hussainara Khatoon’s case it was particularly observed that it is absolutely essential that persons accused of offences should be speedily tried, so that in cases where bail, in proper exercise of discretion, is refused, the accused persons have not to remain in jail longer than is absolutely necessary. Ultimately in its lengthy judgment this Court at the concluding part of para 23 summarised the principles regarding the grant of bail in such a situation as referred from the decisions of the various High Courts and Supreme Court and important among them are that if the trial against an accused is not concluded within a reasonable time, it may be violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution under certain circumstances and that if the trial is not concluded within a reasonable time against an accused it amounts to a violation of the right of speedy trial guaranteed to him under Art. 21 of the Constitution and the accused is entitled to grant of bail. The trial against an accused must be concluded within a reasonable time.
6. It could thus be seen in all these decisions the emphasis is on conclusion of the criminal trial “within a reasonable time”. What should be construed as a reasonable time cannot be generalised and it necessarily varies from case to case and circumstances to circumstances. Sri Acharya agrees that the state of criminal justice in Karnataka is not that appalling as found by the Supreme Court in the State of Bihar or in some other northern States. The Sessions Judge himself in this case refers to conclusion of trials in cases committed subsequent to this case and has given even adequate and satisfactory reasons as to why the trial could not be concluded earlier. It is fundamental that a case and a counter case should be tried together, though not in a common trial, one after the other and judgments pronounced simultaneously. On this admitted position, the efforts made by the learned Sessions Judge to get the counter case also committed to him either when it was brought to his notice during the visit to the Central Jail or during the revision filed before him are rather commendable to show his anxiety to take up and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. The accused in the instant case were refused bail for the reason that on the very face of it the part played by them appeared atrocious, heinous and the number of persons injured is as large as seven and at this stage it is needless to say what should happen to the complaint filed by A-17. Ultimately the Court will have to find out as to who exactly was the aggressor on the facts revealed in the instant case. As pointed out earlier, the members of the unlawful assembly were virtually in chase of Honnaiah and when he was not found in a bus or in the bus stand, Gopaiah was fatally assaulted and dragged. While the Court cannot ignore the fundamental right of the accused under Art. 21 of the Constitution, it cannot also shut its eyes totally to the atrocious nature of the offence committed. Ultimately, it is a question of harmonizing the two situations and finding what should be the course to be adopted in order to see that justice is done to both parties. I am not able to accept the contention that the trial has not been concluded within reasonable time for the reason that the Sessions Court is yet to receive the committal order in the other case and soon after the same is received, the learned Sessions Judge will sit to try both the cases together. In view of the stage at which the case stands and the report of the learned Sessions Judge, it would be reasonable if proper directions are given to the Sessions Court for the trial of the cases.
7. With this observation, I find that it is not in the interest of justice that the petitioners should be granted bail. Petition is rejected. However, the learned Sessions Judge shall proceed to consider framing of charges immediately advancing S.C. No. 1/90 within two weeks of receipt of this order, with notice to both sides, await committal order in the counter case, proceed to consider framing of charges in that case as well, in two weeks from the date of receipt of the committal order and then if charges are framed in that case, proceed to fix a date not later than one month after the charges are framed in the counter case for trial of the two cases and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. Both sides shall co-operate with the Sessions Court in the early disposal of the cases.
8. Order accordingly.