1. Rule.
Mr. J.K.Shah, learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the Respondent-State.
2. The instant application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Sarkhej Police Station CR No. I 95/2009 regarding offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 427, 323, 143, 147, 294(B) of the Indian Penal Code and under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
3. Mr.
V.B.Mehta, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that in the instant matter, the applicant in in jail since last mare than about two years. It is further submitted that the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed and considering the FIR, the accused is not named. No role is attributed to him. Only because he happened to be the relative of main accused, he has wrongly been involved in this case. Mr. Mehta relied upon the case of Sanjay Chandra v/s CBI reported in 2012(1) GLH 93.
4. Mr.
J.K.Shah, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed this application and submitted that in the instant matter during the course of investigation, it transpired that major role came to be played by the applicant. Over and above this, there are 16 criminal cases are pending against the applicant and the books of accounts as well the cash of Rs. 4,45,000/- came to be seized from him. It is, therefore, submitted that the application may be dismissed.
5. Having considering the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly considering the order dated 21st May, 2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, prima facie, without going deep into the merits of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that major role appears to have been played by the applicant in this case. There is nothing at this stage to come to the conclusion that the applicant came to be implicated in this matter simply because he happened to be the relative of the main accused. As observed by the Sessions Court the applicant came to be arrested in connection with 16 different criminal cases and from the custody of the applicant, books of accounts as well as cash amount of Rs. 4,45,000/- came to be seized. On behalf of the applicant, reliance was placed upon the case of Sanjay Chandra v/s CBI reported in 2012(1) GLH 93. There can not be any dispute about the principle established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred case. It has been observed in the said decision by Hon'ble Apex Court that grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court and it is regulated to large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. It has further been observed that primary purpose of bail in a criminal case is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and every person detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial.
6. In the above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the discretionary power vested in this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not required to be exercised qua the applicant. However, it has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that he is in jail since 13/10/2009 and as yet, there is no progress in the trial. This is, indeed, a submission, which is required to be considered. The concerned Trial Court, therefore, should be directed to expedite the trial of the criminal case and to dispose of the case in accordance with law at the earliest preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the application is dismissed. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the criminal case and to dispose of the said case in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferable within six months from the date of communication of this order.
8. Rule is discharged.
9. Direct Service is permitted.
(J.C.Upadhyaya, J.) cmj/ Top