Mohammad Mian Vs. State of U.P. Semantic Analysis

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Mohammad Mian Vs. State of U.P.

Decided On : Sep-04-1991

Court : Allahabad

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context

$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mohammad Mian Vs. State of U.P. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 302 I.P.C.',
			(int) 1 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 2 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 3 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 4 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 5 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 6 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 7 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 8 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 9 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 167(2)(a',
			(int) 11 => 'section 167',
			(int) 12 => 'Section 302 I.P.C.'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Singh',
			(int) 1 => 'District Budaun.2',
			(int) 2 => 'F.I.R.',
			(int) 3 => 'Budha',
			(int) 4 => 'Budaun.3',
			(int) 5 => 'Cr',
			(int) 6 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 7 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 8 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 9 => 'P.S.'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Ojhani'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mohammad Mian',
			(int) 1 => 'P.S. Ojhani',
			(int) 2 => 'Mohammad Mian',
			(int) 3 => 'Bilsi Road',
			(int) 4 => 'Cri LJ',
			(int) 5 => 'Maneka Gandhi v. Union',
			(int) 6 => 'Sri Ravindra Sharma',
			(int) 7 => 'Mohammad Mian',
			(int) 8 => 'Babu',
			(int) 9 => 'Mohammad Mian',
			(int) 10 => 'Mohammad Mian',
			(int) 11 => 'C. J. M. Buduan'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '20-6-1989',
			(int) 1 => '7.00',
			(int) 2 => '240',
			(int) 3 => 'one',
			(int) 4 => '11-4-1990',
			(int) 5 => '15-3-1991',
			(int) 6 => 'eight',
			(int) 7 => 'one',
			(int) 8 => '258',
			(int) 9 => 'two'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1989',
			(int) 1 => 'more than two years',
			(int) 2 => '1360',
			(int) 3 => '1979',
			(int) 4 => '1041',
			(int) 5 => 'today',
			(int) 6 => '1973',
			(int) 7 => '90 days',
			(int) 8 => 'less than ten years',
			(int) 9 => '60 days',
			(int) 10 => '90 days',
			(int) 11 => '60 days',
			(int) 12 => 'the period of',
			(int) 13 => '60 days',
			(int) 14 => 'from day',
			(int) 15 => 'the following day',
			(int) 16 => 'more than two years',
			(int) 17 => '6-11-1989',
			(int) 18 => '24-8-1990',
			(int) 19 => '29-8-1990',
			(int) 20 => '1989'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Reliance',
			(int) 1 => 'Hussainara v. State of Bihar,',
			(int) 2 => 'Hussainara the Supreme Court',
			(int) 3 => 'Court',
			(int) 4 => 'AIR 1978',
			(int) 5 => 'SC',
			(int) 6 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 7 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 8 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 9 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 10 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 11 => 'Hussainara',
			(int) 12 => 'Parliament'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Cri LJ 1036'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '10-5-1990'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '477712',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 302 and 309; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 167, 167(2) and 437(6); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 21',
			'appealno' => 'Cril. Misc. Bail Application No. 8157 of 1990',
			'appellant' => 'Mohammad Mian',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mohammad Mian Vs. State of U.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravindra Sharma, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'A.G.A.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-09-04',
			'deposition' => 'Application allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The applicant, Mohammad Mian, is being prosecuted for committing the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Ojhani, District Budaun.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. According to recital in the F.I.R., Budha was shot dead by the applicant, Mohammad Mian, on 20-6-1989 at 7.00 P.M. near the culvert of Bilsi Road, Ojhani. A charge sheet was submitted against the applicant under Section 302 I.P.C. and the case S.T. No. 240 of 1989-- is pending in the court of learned sessions Judge, Budaun.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that there has been inordinate delay in the trial of the case and as the applicant has been in jail for more than two years, he may be enlarged on bail. Reliance has been placed upon the case of Hussainara v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360 : (1979 Cri LJ 1036). In the case of Hussainara the Supreme Court has observed as follows at page 1041 (of Cri LJ) :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We think that even under our Constitution, though speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. We have held in that case that Article 21 confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and it is not enough to constitute compliance with the requirement of that Article that some semblance of a procedure should be prescribed by law and it is not enough to constitute compliance with the requirement of that Article that some semblance of a procedure should be prescribed by law, but that the procedure should be reasonable, fair and just. If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 and he would be entitled to enforce such fundamental right and secure his release. Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be 'reasonable, fair or just' unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. The question which would, however, arise is as to what would be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed trial in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21. Would he be entitled to be released unconditionally freed from the charge levelled against him on the ground that trying him after an unduly long period of time and convicting him after such trial would constitute violation of his fundamental right under Article 21? That is a question we shall have to consider when we hear the writ petition on merits on the adjourned date. But one thing is certain and we cannot impress it too strongly on the State Government that it is high time that the State Government realised its responsibility to the people in the matter of administration of justice and set up more courts for the trial of cases. We may point out that it would not be enough merely to establish more courts but the State Government would also have to man them by competent judges and whatever is necessary for the purpose of recruiting competent judges such as improving their conditions of service, would have to be done by the State Government, if they want to improve the system of administration of justice and make it an effective instrument for reaching justice to the large masses of people for whom justice is today a meaningless and empty word.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">While emphasising that a reasonable expeditious trial of a criminal case is an integral part of fundamental right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>, the Supreme Court, in Hussainara's case, has intentionally refrained from answering the question as to what shall be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty of imprisonment as a result of abnormal delay in the conclusion of his trial. The Parliament was conscious of the delay in the investigation and trial of criminal cases. When the new Cr. P.C. was enacted in 1973 a new provision under Section 167(2)(a) was added in old section 167 to cover the state of investigation of criminal cases, which provides, that no magistrate shall authorise the detention of an accused person in custody under section 167 Cr. P.C. for a total period exceeding 90 days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years and 60 days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and on the expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the trial of cases in the court of magistrate and provides that if in any case, triable by a magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within the period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail unless the magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing directs otherwise. But no such provision was enacted so far as the trial of criminal cases by the sessions Judge was concerned. The only relevant provision is to be found in section 309 of the Code which provides that in any enquiry or trial, proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. Thus there is no specific provision to grant bail to an accused facing trial in the court of a Sessions Judge if there has been inordinate delay in the trial of his case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant, has argued that in the present case the applicant Mohammad Mian is languishing in jail for more than two years and he should be released on bail as it is not certain how much long the learned sessions Judge will take to conclude the trial. When there is no statutory provision under which an accused can claim his release on bail for there being inordinate delay in his trial before the sessions Judge, I am of the view that it would not be prudent to lay down that in every case the accused should be enlarged on bail if there has been a long and inordinate delay in his trial. The reason is very simple. If such a view is taken it will give a long handle to the accused and his pairokars and in some cases they may resort to delaying and dilatory tactics in order to bring their cases to a stage where it can be safely claimed that there has been long and inordinate delay in the trial of the case. The cases are not unknown where trials before the sessions Judges have been delayed due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the unscrupulous pairokars of the accused. There may also be cases where the delay may be caused due to other reasons for which the accused is not responsible. For example there can be a case where the delay has been caused due to inability on the part of the prosecution to bring its witnesses to the court. In such a case the court may, in appropriate cases, enlarge the accused on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case the case was committed to the court of Sessions on 6-11-1989 and the charge was framed on 11-4-1990. The statement of P.W.-1. Babu, commenced on 24-8-1990 and was concluded on 29-8-1990. On a perusal of copy of order sheet filed by the applicant it is quite clear that during the period 10-5-1990 to 15-3-1991 the prosecution was not in a position to bring its witnesses to court on eight dates. Some other dates were also fixed on which the case was not taken up due to one reason or the other. It is obvious that in this case the accused, Mohammad Mian cannot be saddled with the responsibility of delaying the trial. Considering all the circumstances of the case I am of the view that this is one of those cases where the applicant should be enlarged on bail for the reason that there has been inordinate and undue delay in the trial of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Let the applicant, Mohammad Mian, be released on bail in Crime No. 258 of 1989, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Ujahni, District Budaun, provided he furnishes two sureties and a personal bond to the satisfaction of C. J. M. Buduan.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1993CriLJ2621',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of U.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '477712'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mohammad Mian Vs. State of U.P. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 302 I.P.C.',
		(int) 1 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 2 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 3 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 4 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 5 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 6 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 7 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 8 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 9 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 167(2)(a',
		(int) 11 => 'section 167',
		(int) 12 => 'Section 302 I.P.C.'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Singh',
		(int) 1 => 'District Budaun.2',
		(int) 2 => 'F.I.R.',
		(int) 3 => 'Budha',
		(int) 4 => 'Budaun.3',
		(int) 5 => 'Cr',
		(int) 6 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 7 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 8 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 9 => 'P.S.'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Ojhani'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mohammad Mian',
		(int) 1 => 'P.S. Ojhani',
		(int) 2 => 'Mohammad Mian',
		(int) 3 => 'Bilsi Road',
		(int) 4 => 'Cri LJ',
		(int) 5 => 'Maneka Gandhi v. Union',
		(int) 6 => 'Sri Ravindra Sharma',
		(int) 7 => 'Mohammad Mian',
		(int) 8 => 'Babu',
		(int) 9 => 'Mohammad Mian',
		(int) 10 => 'Mohammad Mian',
		(int) 11 => 'C. J. M. Buduan'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '20-6-1989',
		(int) 1 => '7.00',
		(int) 2 => '240',
		(int) 3 => 'one',
		(int) 4 => '11-4-1990',
		(int) 5 => '15-3-1991',
		(int) 6 => 'eight',
		(int) 7 => 'one',
		(int) 8 => '258',
		(int) 9 => 'two'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1989',
		(int) 1 => 'more than two years',
		(int) 2 => '1360',
		(int) 3 => '1979',
		(int) 4 => '1041',
		(int) 5 => 'today',
		(int) 6 => '1973',
		(int) 7 => '90 days',
		(int) 8 => 'less than ten years',
		(int) 9 => '60 days',
		(int) 10 => '90 days',
		(int) 11 => '60 days',
		(int) 12 => 'the period of',
		(int) 13 => '60 days',
		(int) 14 => 'from day',
		(int) 15 => 'the following day',
		(int) 16 => 'more than two years',
		(int) 17 => '6-11-1989',
		(int) 18 => '24-8-1990',
		(int) 19 => '29-8-1990',
		(int) 20 => '1989'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Reliance',
		(int) 1 => 'Hussainara v. State of Bihar,',
		(int) 2 => 'Hussainara the Supreme Court',
		(int) 3 => 'Court',
		(int) 4 => 'AIR 1978',
		(int) 5 => 'SC',
		(int) 6 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 7 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 8 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 9 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 10 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 11 => 'Hussainara',
		(int) 12 => 'Parliament'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Cri LJ 1036'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '10-5-1990'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '477712',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 302 and 309; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 167, 167(2) and 437(6); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 21',
		'appealno' => 'Cril. Misc. Bail Application No. 8157 of 1990',
		'appellant' => 'Mohammad Mian',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mohammad Mian Vs. State of U.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravindra Sharma, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'A.G.A.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-09-04',
		'deposition' => 'Application allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The applicant, Mohammad Mian, is being prosecuted for committing the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Ojhani, District Budaun.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. According to recital in the F.I.R., Budha was shot dead by the applicant, Mohammad Mian, on 20-6-1989 at 7.00 P.M. near the culvert of Bilsi Road, Ojhani. A charge sheet was submitted against the applicant under Section 302 I.P.C. and the case S.T. No. 240 of 1989-- is pending in the court of learned sessions Judge, Budaun.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that there has been inordinate delay in the trial of the case and as the applicant has been in jail for more than two years, he may be enlarged on bail. Reliance has been placed upon the case of Hussainara v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360 : (1979 Cri LJ 1036). In the case of Hussainara the Supreme Court has observed as follows at page 1041 (of Cri LJ) :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We think that even under our Constitution, though speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. We have held in that case that Article 21 confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and it is not enough to constitute compliance with the requirement of that Article that some semblance of a procedure should be prescribed by law and it is not enough to constitute compliance with the requirement of that Article that some semblance of a procedure should be prescribed by law, but that the procedure should be reasonable, fair and just. If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 and he would be entitled to enforce such fundamental right and secure his release. Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be 'reasonable, fair or just' unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. The question which would, however, arise is as to what would be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed trial in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21. Would he be entitled to be released unconditionally freed from the charge levelled against him on the ground that trying him after an unduly long period of time and convicting him after such trial would constitute violation of his fundamental right under Article 21? That is a question we shall have to consider when we hear the writ petition on merits on the adjourned date. But one thing is certain and we cannot impress it too strongly on the State Government that it is high time that the State Government realised its responsibility to the people in the matter of administration of justice and set up more courts for the trial of cases. We may point out that it would not be enough merely to establish more courts but the State Government would also have to man them by competent judges and whatever is necessary for the purpose of recruiting competent judges such as improving their conditions of service, would have to be done by the State Government, if they want to improve the system of administration of justice and make it an effective instrument for reaching justice to the large masses of people for whom justice is today a meaningless and empty word.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">While emphasising that a reasonable expeditious trial of a criminal case is an integral part of fundamental right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>, the Supreme Court, in Hussainara's case, has intentionally refrained from answering the question as to what shall be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty of imprisonment as a result of abnormal delay in the conclusion of his trial. The Parliament was conscious of the delay in the investigation and trial of criminal cases. When the new Cr. P.C. was enacted in 1973 a new provision under Section 167(2)(a) was added in old section 167 to cover the state of investigation of criminal cases, which provides, that no magistrate shall authorise the detention of an accused person in custody under section 167 Cr. P.C. for a total period exceeding 90 days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years and 60 days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and on the expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the trial of cases in the court of magistrate and provides that if in any case, triable by a magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within the period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail unless the magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing directs otherwise. But no such provision was enacted so far as the trial of criminal cases by the sessions Judge was concerned. The only relevant provision is to be found in section 309 of the Code which provides that in any enquiry or trial, proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. Thus there is no specific provision to grant bail to an accused facing trial in the court of a Sessions Judge if there has been inordinate delay in the trial of his case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant, has argued that in the present case the applicant Mohammad Mian is languishing in jail for more than two years and he should be released on bail as it is not certain how much long the learned sessions Judge will take to conclude the trial. When there is no statutory provision under which an accused can claim his release on bail for there being inordinate delay in his trial before the sessions Judge, I am of the view that it would not be prudent to lay down that in every case the accused should be enlarged on bail if there has been a long and inordinate delay in his trial. The reason is very simple. If such a view is taken it will give a long handle to the accused and his pairokars and in some cases they may resort to delaying and dilatory tactics in order to bring their cases to a stage where it can be safely claimed that there has been long and inordinate delay in the trial of the case. The cases are not unknown where trials before the sessions Judges have been delayed due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the unscrupulous pairokars of the accused. There may also be cases where the delay may be caused due to other reasons for which the accused is not responsible. For example there can be a case where the delay has been caused due to inability on the part of the prosecution to bring its witnesses to the court. In such a case the court may, in appropriate cases, enlarge the accused on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case the case was committed to the court of Sessions on 6-11-1989 and the charge was framed on 11-4-1990. The statement of P.W.-1. Babu, commenced on 24-8-1990 and was concluded on 29-8-1990. On a perusal of copy of order sheet filed by the applicant it is quite clear that during the period 10-5-1990 to 15-3-1991 the prosecution was not in a position to bring its witnesses to court on eight dates. Some other dates were also fixed on which the case was not taken up due to one reason or the other. It is obvious that in this case the accused, Mohammad Mian cannot be saddled with the responsibility of delaying the trial. Considering all the circumstances of the case I am of the view that this is one of those cases where the applicant should be enlarged on bail for the reason that there has been inordinate and undue delay in the trial of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Let the applicant, Mohammad Mian, be released on bail in Crime No. 258 of 1989, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Ujahni, District Budaun, provided he furnishes two sureties and a personal bond to the satisfaction of C. J. M. Buduan.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1993CriLJ2621',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of U.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '477712'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Mohammad Mian Vs. State of U.P. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Section 302 I.P.C.',
			(int) 1 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 2 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 3 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 4 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 5 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 6 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 7 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 8 => 'Article 21',
			(int) 9 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
			(int) 10 => 'Section 167(2)(a',
			(int) 11 => 'section 167',
			(int) 12 => 'Section 302 I.P.C.'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Singh',
			(int) 1 => 'District Budaun.2',
			(int) 2 => 'F.I.R.',
			(int) 3 => 'Budha',
			(int) 4 => 'Budaun.3',
			(int) 5 => 'Cr',
			(int) 6 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 7 => 'P.C.',
			(int) 8 => 'Counsel',
			(int) 9 => 'P.S.'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Ojhani'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Mohammad Mian',
			(int) 1 => 'P.S. Ojhani',
			(int) 2 => 'Mohammad Mian',
			(int) 3 => 'Bilsi Road',
			(int) 4 => 'Cri LJ',
			(int) 5 => 'Maneka Gandhi v. Union',
			(int) 6 => 'Sri Ravindra Sharma',
			(int) 7 => 'Mohammad Mian',
			(int) 8 => 'Babu',
			(int) 9 => 'Mohammad Mian',
			(int) 10 => 'Mohammad Mian',
			(int) 11 => 'C. J. M. Buduan'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '20-6-1989',
			(int) 1 => '7.00',
			(int) 2 => '240',
			(int) 3 => 'one',
			(int) 4 => '11-4-1990',
			(int) 5 => '15-3-1991',
			(int) 6 => 'eight',
			(int) 7 => 'one',
			(int) 8 => '258',
			(int) 9 => 'two'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1989',
			(int) 1 => 'more than two years',
			(int) 2 => '1360',
			(int) 3 => '1979',
			(int) 4 => '1041',
			(int) 5 => 'today',
			(int) 6 => '1973',
			(int) 7 => '90 days',
			(int) 8 => 'less than ten years',
			(int) 9 => '60 days',
			(int) 10 => '90 days',
			(int) 11 => '60 days',
			(int) 12 => 'the period of',
			(int) 13 => '60 days',
			(int) 14 => 'from day',
			(int) 15 => 'the following day',
			(int) 16 => 'more than two years',
			(int) 17 => '6-11-1989',
			(int) 18 => '24-8-1990',
			(int) 19 => '29-8-1990',
			(int) 20 => '1989'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Reliance',
			(int) 1 => 'Hussainara v. State of Bihar,',
			(int) 2 => 'Hussainara the Supreme Court',
			(int) 3 => 'Court',
			(int) 4 => 'AIR 1978',
			(int) 5 => 'SC',
			(int) 6 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 7 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 8 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 9 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 10 => 'the Supreme Court',
			(int) 11 => 'Hussainara',
			(int) 12 => 'Parliament'
		),
		'PRODUCT' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Cri LJ 1036'
		),
		'ORDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'first'
		),
		'TIME' => array(
			(int) 0 => '10-5-1990'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '477712',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 302 and 309; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 167, 167(2) and 437(6); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 21',
			'appealno' => 'Cril. Misc. Bail Application No. 8157 of 1990',
			'appellant' => 'Mohammad Mian',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Mohammad Mian Vs. State of U.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'Ravindra Sharma, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'A.G.A.',
			'court' => 'Allahabad',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1991-09-04',
			'deposition' => 'Application allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B.P. Singh, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The applicant, Mohammad Mian, is being prosecuted for committing the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Ojhani, District Budaun.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. According to recital in the F.I.R., Budha was shot dead by the applicant, Mohammad Mian, on 20-6-1989 at 7.00 P.M. near the culvert of Bilsi Road, Ojhani. A charge sheet was submitted against the applicant under Section 302 I.P.C. and the case S.T. No. 240 of 1989-- is pending in the court of learned sessions Judge, Budaun.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that there has been inordinate delay in the trial of the case and as the applicant has been in jail for more than two years, he may be enlarged on bail. Reliance has been placed upon the case of Hussainara v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360 : (1979 Cri LJ 1036). In the case of Hussainara the Supreme Court has observed as follows at page 1041 (of Cri LJ) :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We think that even under our Constitution, though speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. We have held in that case that Article 21 confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and it is not enough to constitute compliance with the requirement of that Article that some semblance of a procedure should be prescribed by law and it is not enough to constitute compliance with the requirement of that Article that some semblance of a procedure should be prescribed by law, but that the procedure should be reasonable, fair and just. If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 and he would be entitled to enforce such fundamental right and secure his release. Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be 'reasonable, fair or just' unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. The question which would, however, arise is as to what would be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed trial in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21. Would he be entitled to be released unconditionally freed from the charge levelled against him on the ground that trying him after an unduly long period of time and convicting him after such trial would constitute violation of his fundamental right under Article 21? That is a question we shall have to consider when we hear the writ petition on merits on the adjourned date. But one thing is certain and we cannot impress it too strongly on the State Government that it is high time that the State Government realised its responsibility to the people in the matter of administration of justice and set up more courts for the trial of cases. We may point out that it would not be enough merely to establish more courts but the State Government would also have to man them by competent judges and whatever is necessary for the purpose of recruiting competent judges such as improving their conditions of service, would have to be done by the State Government, if they want to improve the system of administration of justice and make it an effective instrument for reaching justice to the large masses of people for whom justice is today a meaningless and empty word.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">While emphasising that a reasonable expeditious trial of a criminal case is an integral part of fundamental right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>, the Supreme Court, in Hussainara's case, has intentionally refrained from answering the question as to what shall be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty of imprisonment as a result of abnormal delay in the conclusion of his trial. The Parliament was conscious of the delay in the investigation and trial of criminal cases. When the new Cr. P.C. was enacted in 1973 a new provision under Section 167(2)(a) was added in old section 167 to cover the state of investigation of criminal cases, which provides, that no magistrate shall authorise the detention of an accused person in custody under section 167 Cr. P.C. for a total period exceeding 90 days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years and 60 days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and on the expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the trial of cases in the court of magistrate and provides that if in any case, triable by a magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within the period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail unless the magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing directs otherwise. But no such provision was enacted so far as the trial of criminal cases by the sessions Judge was concerned. The only relevant provision is to be found in section 309 of the Code which provides that in any enquiry or trial, proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. Thus there is no specific provision to grant bail to an accused facing trial in the court of a Sessions Judge if there has been inordinate delay in the trial of his case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant, has argued that in the present case the applicant Mohammad Mian is languishing in jail for more than two years and he should be released on bail as it is not certain how much long the learned sessions Judge will take to conclude the trial. When there is no statutory provision under which an accused can claim his release on bail for there being inordinate delay in his trial before the sessions Judge, I am of the view that it would not be prudent to lay down that in every case the accused should be enlarged on bail if there has been a long and inordinate delay in his trial. The reason is very simple. If such a view is taken it will give a long handle to the accused and his pairokars and in some cases they may resort to delaying and dilatory tactics in order to bring their cases to a stage where it can be safely claimed that there has been long and inordinate delay in the trial of the case. The cases are not unknown where trials before the sessions Judges have been delayed due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the unscrupulous pairokars of the accused. There may also be cases where the delay may be caused due to other reasons for which the accused is not responsible. For example there can be a case where the delay has been caused due to inability on the part of the prosecution to bring its witnesses to the court. In such a case the court may, in appropriate cases, enlarge the accused on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case the case was committed to the court of Sessions on 6-11-1989 and the charge was framed on 11-4-1990. The statement of P.W.-1. Babu, commenced on 24-8-1990 and was concluded on 29-8-1990. On a perusal of copy of order sheet filed by the applicant it is quite clear that during the period 10-5-1990 to 15-3-1991 the prosecution was not in a position to bring its witnesses to court on eight dates. Some other dates were also fixed on which the case was not taken up due to one reason or the other. It is obvious that in this case the accused, Mohammad Mian cannot be saddled with the responsibility of delaying the trial. Considering all the circumstances of the case I am of the view that this is one of those cases where the applicant should be enlarged on bail for the reason that there has been inordinate and undue delay in the trial of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Let the applicant, Mohammad Mian, be released on bail in Crime No. 258 of 1989, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Ujahni, District Budaun, provided he furnishes two sureties and a personal bond to the satisfaction of C. J. M. Buduan.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1993CriLJ2621',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of U.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '477712'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Mohammad Mian Vs. State of U.P. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Section 302 I.P.C.',
		(int) 1 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 2 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 3 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 4 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 5 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 6 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 7 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 8 => 'Article 21',
		(int) 9 => 'Article 21 of the Constitution of India',
		(int) 10 => 'Section 167(2)(a',
		(int) 11 => 'section 167',
		(int) 12 => 'Section 302 I.P.C.'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Singh',
		(int) 1 => 'District Budaun.2',
		(int) 2 => 'F.I.R.',
		(int) 3 => 'Budha',
		(int) 4 => 'Budaun.3',
		(int) 5 => 'Cr',
		(int) 6 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 7 => 'P.C.',
		(int) 8 => 'Counsel',
		(int) 9 => 'P.S.'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Ojhani'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Mohammad Mian',
		(int) 1 => 'P.S. Ojhani',
		(int) 2 => 'Mohammad Mian',
		(int) 3 => 'Bilsi Road',
		(int) 4 => 'Cri LJ',
		(int) 5 => 'Maneka Gandhi v. Union',
		(int) 6 => 'Sri Ravindra Sharma',
		(int) 7 => 'Mohammad Mian',
		(int) 8 => 'Babu',
		(int) 9 => 'Mohammad Mian',
		(int) 10 => 'Mohammad Mian',
		(int) 11 => 'C. J. M. Buduan'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '20-6-1989',
		(int) 1 => '7.00',
		(int) 2 => '240',
		(int) 3 => 'one',
		(int) 4 => '11-4-1990',
		(int) 5 => '15-3-1991',
		(int) 6 => 'eight',
		(int) 7 => 'one',
		(int) 8 => '258',
		(int) 9 => 'two'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1989',
		(int) 1 => 'more than two years',
		(int) 2 => '1360',
		(int) 3 => '1979',
		(int) 4 => '1041',
		(int) 5 => 'today',
		(int) 6 => '1973',
		(int) 7 => '90 days',
		(int) 8 => 'less than ten years',
		(int) 9 => '60 days',
		(int) 10 => '90 days',
		(int) 11 => '60 days',
		(int) 12 => 'the period of',
		(int) 13 => '60 days',
		(int) 14 => 'from day',
		(int) 15 => 'the following day',
		(int) 16 => 'more than two years',
		(int) 17 => '6-11-1989',
		(int) 18 => '24-8-1990',
		(int) 19 => '29-8-1990',
		(int) 20 => '1989'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Reliance',
		(int) 1 => 'Hussainara v. State of Bihar,',
		(int) 2 => 'Hussainara the Supreme Court',
		(int) 3 => 'Court',
		(int) 4 => 'AIR 1978',
		(int) 5 => 'SC',
		(int) 6 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 7 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 8 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 9 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 10 => 'the Supreme Court',
		(int) 11 => 'Hussainara',
		(int) 12 => 'Parliament'
	),
	'PRODUCT' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Cri LJ 1036'
	),
	'ORDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'first'
	),
	'TIME' => array(
		(int) 0 => '10-5-1990'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '477712',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51485/indian-penal-code-45-of-1860-complete-act">Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860</a> - Sections 302 and 309; <a href="/act/50902/code-of-criminal-procedure-1973-complete-act">Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973</a> - Sections 167, 167(2) and 437(6); <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 21',
		'appealno' => 'Cril. Misc. Bail Application No. 8157 of 1990',
		'appellant' => 'Mohammad Mian',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Mohammad Mian Vs. State of U.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'Ravindra Sharma, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'A.G.A.',
		'court' => 'Allahabad',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1991-09-04',
		'deposition' => 'Application allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B.P. Singh, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">B.P. Singh, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The applicant, Mohammad Mian, is being prosecuted for committing the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Ojhani, District Budaun.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. According to recital in the F.I.R., Budha was shot dead by the applicant, Mohammad Mian, on 20-6-1989 at 7.00 P.M. near the culvert of Bilsi Road, Ojhani. A charge sheet was submitted against the applicant under Section 302 I.P.C. and the case S.T. No. 240 of 1989-- is pending in the court of learned sessions Judge, Budaun.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that there has been inordinate delay in the trial of the case and as the applicant has been in jail for more than two years, he may be enlarged on bail. Reliance has been placed upon the case of Hussainara v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360 : (1979 Cri LJ 1036). In the case of Hussainara the Supreme Court has observed as follows at page 1041 (of Cri LJ) :--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">We think that even under our Constitution, though speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. We have held in that case that Article 21 confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and it is not enough to constitute compliance with the requirement of that Article that some semblance of a procedure should be prescribed by law and it is not enough to constitute compliance with the requirement of that Article that some semblance of a procedure should be prescribed by law, but that the procedure should be reasonable, fair and just. If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 and he would be entitled to enforce such fundamental right and secure his release. Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be 'reasonable, fair or just' unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. The question which would, however, arise is as to what would be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed trial in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21. Would he be entitled to be released unconditionally freed from the charge levelled against him on the ground that trying him after an unduly long period of time and convicting him after such trial would constitute violation of his fundamental right under Article 21? That is a question we shall have to consider when we hear the writ petition on merits on the adjourned date. But one thing is certain and we cannot impress it too strongly on the State Government that it is high time that the State Government realised its responsibility to the people in the matter of administration of justice and set up more courts for the trial of cases. We may point out that it would not be enough merely to establish more courts but the State Government would also have to man them by competent judges and whatever is necessary for the purpose of recruiting competent judges such as improving their conditions of service, would have to be done by the State Government, if they want to improve the system of administration of justice and make it an effective instrument for reaching justice to the large masses of people for whom justice is today a meaningless and empty word.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">While emphasising that a reasonable expeditious trial of a criminal case is an integral part of fundamental right to life and liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a>, the Supreme Court, in Hussainara's case, has intentionally refrained from answering the question as to what shall be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty of imprisonment as a result of abnormal delay in the conclusion of his trial. The Parliament was conscious of the delay in the investigation and trial of criminal cases. When the new Cr. P.C. was enacted in 1973 a new provision under Section 167(2)(a) was added in old section 167 to cover the state of investigation of criminal cases, which provides, that no magistrate shall authorise the detention of an accused person in custody under section 167 Cr. P.C. for a total period exceeding 90 days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years and 60 days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and on the expiry of the said period of 90 days or 60 days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Section 437(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the trial of cases in the court of magistrate and provides that if in any case, triable by a magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within the period of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail unless the magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing directs otherwise. But no such provision was enacted so far as the trial of criminal cases by the sessions Judge was concerned. The only relevant provision is to be found in section 309 of the Code which provides that in any enquiry or trial, proceedings shall be held as expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. Thus there is no specific provision to grant bail to an accused facing trial in the court of a Sessions Judge if there has been inordinate delay in the trial of his case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant, has argued that in the present case the applicant Mohammad Mian is languishing in jail for more than two years and he should be released on bail as it is not certain how much long the learned sessions Judge will take to conclude the trial. When there is no statutory provision under which an accused can claim his release on bail for there being inordinate delay in his trial before the sessions Judge, I am of the view that it would not be prudent to lay down that in every case the accused should be enlarged on bail if there has been a long and inordinate delay in his trial. The reason is very simple. If such a view is taken it will give a long handle to the accused and his pairokars and in some cases they may resort to delaying and dilatory tactics in order to bring their cases to a stage where it can be safely claimed that there has been long and inordinate delay in the trial of the case. The cases are not unknown where trials before the sessions Judges have been delayed due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the unscrupulous pairokars of the accused. There may also be cases where the delay may be caused due to other reasons for which the accused is not responsible. For example there can be a case where the delay has been caused due to inability on the part of the prosecution to bring its witnesses to the court. In such a case the court may, in appropriate cases, enlarge the accused on bail.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the present case the case was committed to the court of Sessions on 6-11-1989 and the charge was framed on 11-4-1990. The statement of P.W.-1. Babu, commenced on 24-8-1990 and was concluded on 29-8-1990. On a perusal of copy of order sheet filed by the applicant it is quite clear that during the period 10-5-1990 to 15-3-1991 the prosecution was not in a position to bring its witnesses to court on eight dates. Some other dates were also fixed on which the case was not taken up due to one reason or the other. It is obvious that in this case the accused, Mohammad Mian cannot be saddled with the responsibility of delaying the trial. Considering all the circumstances of the case I am of the view that this is one of those cases where the applicant should be enlarged on bail for the reason that there has been inordinate and undue delay in the trial of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Let the applicant, Mohammad Mian, be released on bail in Crime No. 258 of 1989, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Ujahni, District Budaun, provided he furnishes two sureties and a personal bond to the satisfaction of C. J. M. Buduan.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1993CriLJ2621',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of U.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '477712'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Section 302 I.P.C., Constitution, Article 21, Article 21, Article 21, Article 21, Article 21, Article 21, Article 21, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Section 167(2)(a, section 167, Section 302 I.P.C.

GPE: Singh, District Budaun.2, F.I.R., Budha, Budaun.3, Cr, P.C., P.C., Counsel, P.S.

NORP: J.1, Ojhani

PERSON: Mohammad Mian, P.S. Ojhani, Mohammad Mian, Bilsi Road, Cri LJ, Maneka Gandhi v. Union, Sri Ravindra Sharma, Mohammad Mian, Babu, Mohammad Mian, Mohammad Mian, C. J. M. Buduan

CARDINAL: 20-6-1989, 7.00, 240, one, 11-4-1990, 15-3-1991, eight, one, 258, two

DATE: 1989, more than two years, 1360, 1979, 1041, today, 1973, 90 days, less than ten years, 60 days, 90 days, 60 days, the period of, 60 days, from day, the following day, more than two years, 6-11-1989, 24-8-1990, 29-8-1990, 1989

ORG: Reliance, Hussainara v. State of Bihar,, Hussainara the Supreme Court, Court, AIR 1978, SC, the State Government, the State Government, the State Government, the State Government, the Supreme Court, Hussainara, Parliament

PRODUCT: Cri LJ 1036

ORDINAL: first

TIME: 10-5-1990