Satya Brat Gain Vs. State of Bihar
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 577 of 1999)
Petitioner: Satya Brat Gain
Respondent: State of Bihar
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 577 of 1999)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 10, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 437 – Bail – Accused in custody for 5 years – No substantial progress in trial. Held that he be released on bail on furnishing bond with liberty to trial judge to impose conditions. (Para 2)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 437 – Bail – Accused in custody for 5 years – No substantial progress in trial. Held that he be released on bail on furnishing bond with liberty to trial judge to impose conditions. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. In the light of the report submitted by the trial Judge as well as by the Director General and I.G. Police, Patna (Bihar) we do not see any reasonable prospect of the trial against the appellant registering substantial progress in the future. It is already 5 years passed since appellant has been taken into custody in connection with this case. We are definitely not appreciating the reasons for this slow paced progress of the proceedings against the appellant. Be that as it may, we cannot permit the appellant to continue in incarceration for a further period without the adjudication being finalised. We, therefore, order him to be released on bail on his executing a bond to the satisfaction of the trial Judge. We permit the trial Judge to impose such conditions as he feel necessary for ensuring his attendance on the dates of posting in the trial court.
3. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. In the light of the report submitted by the trial Judge as well as by the Director General and I.G. Police, Patna (Bihar) we do not see any reasonable prospect of the trial against the appellant registering substantial progress in the future. It is already 5 years passed since appellant has been taken into custody in connection with this case. We are definitely not appreciating the reasons for this slow paced progress of the proceedings against the appellant. Be that as it may, we cannot permit the appellant to continue in incarceration for a further period without the adjudication being finalised. We, therefore, order him to be released on bail on his executing a bond to the satisfaction of the trial Judge. We permit the trial Judge to impose such conditions as he feel necessary for ensuring his attendance on the dates of posting in the trial court.
3. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
