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