Judgment:
Gopal Krishan Sharma, J.
1. This is an unfortunate matter where the order of this High Court has been disobeyed and flouted by the Sessions Judge, Alwar.
2. A case under Section 302 IPC was pending against the petitioner in the Court of Sessions Judge, Alwar, in which the petitioner was refused to be released on bail. A bail application was moved to this Court; and OP 4-4-1986, Hon'ble VHF Dave, J, while dismissing the bail application directed the trial Court to complete the trial within two months. A letter in this regard was despatched by the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) Jaipur Bench, Jaipur on 5-4-1986. When the order was passed on 4-4-1986 the prosecution had examined six witnesses upto 12-2-1986. Looking to the fact that six witnesses had been examined. Hon'ble v. Dave, J. did not think it proper to release the accused on bail but he directed the trial Court to complete the trial within two months. The trial Court had no option except to carry out the order of this Court and it was its duty to have completed the trial in this case within the time stipulated by this Court.
3. Mr. Dhankad learned counsel for the petitioner read out the Order sheets dated 21-4-1986, 13-5-1986, 19-5-1986,9-6-1986 and 8-7-1986. From these order-sheets, it seems that one witness was examined on 13-5-1986 and one witness was examined on 8-7-1986. On ocher dates the witnesses were not present, so they were not examined. The order of this Court dated 4-4-1986 was passed in presence of Shri G.C. Chatterjee and it is expected that the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Chatterjee must have conveyed it to his counter part who is conducting the case in the trial Court. The order of this Court was sent to the trial Court and it must have reached the learned trial Judge. Inspite of that order the Public Prosecutor who is conducting the case in the trial Court, it did not care to see that the witnesses are present in the Court. He should have assisted the Court in completing the trial within two months. It seems that the prosecution is also negligent in conducting the cases in the trial Court. Most unfortunate part is that the learned Sessions Judge did not bother about the order of this Court. It was his duty to have completed the trial in this case within the stipulated period and if the witnesses were not coming on the dates fixed by him, he should not have granted adjournments. Granting adjournments beyond the period of two months is nothing but intentionally flouting the order of this Court and this insubordination by a Judicial Officer cannot be tolerated. If the learned Sessions Judge was unable to complete the trial within the stipulated r period, it was his duty to have informed this Court that on account of some reason he could not complete the trial, and he should have requested this Court for extending the period to complete the trial. The Lamed Sessions Judge did not even bother to write a letter informing this Court about his inability to complete the trial within two months. What this shows, is, that 'this is clear disobedience by the Sessions Judge and he does not bother about the order of this Court; and he did not follow the procedure in conducting the sessions case. When a sessions case is taken up, it is the duty of the Sessions Judge to fix the dates not by interval but day to day. Once the case is started, it means, it must be completed in one session i.e. in continuous trial. He should not fix the sessions case by giving dates in interval. The subordinate court has disobeyed the order of this Court and the prosecution machinery too does not bother to bring their witnesses for which they are bound by law. It is their duty to keep their witnesses ready on every date. The State can only he assisted by the Court to bring their witnesses but it is the duty of the prosecution to bring their own witnesses. It is incorrect and most unjustified procedure to bring witnesses one or two per day. In such matters, a person who is in jail cannot be detained for a very long period on account of not bringing the witnesses by the prosecutipn and on account of not carrying out the orders of this Court by the subordinate Court.
4. Therefore, the petitioner in this case is ordered to bereleased on bail on his furnishing a surety of Rs. 5,000/- and1 a personal bond m the same amount to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Alwar, for his appearance before the trial Court as and when called upon'to do so during the pendency of the trial in this case.
5. A copy of this order be sent to Registrar Raj. High Court, Jodhpur with the request that the matter may be put up before Hdn'ble Chief Justice for taking necessary action, and'the Registrar is directed to inform this Court about the action taken.