Delay in trial: HC seeks details of action against erring officials

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, April 25

Over a month after the Bathinda District and Sessions Judge was asked to look into the delay in concluding a murder trial, the judicial officer has come out with a scathing report.

The Judge has stated in his report to the Punjab and Haryana High Court that the challan was presented on July 19, 2014, and the charge was framed on July 30, 2014. However, only one witness was “recorded” after three-and-a-half months.

“There were many occasions when no prosecution witness was present on the date of hearing… The examination of the investigating officer could not be recorded for want of case property… The prosecution closed the prosecution evidence on March 17…,” the report said.

Justice Deepak Sibal has called for details of the action against the “defaulting” officials. The direction came after counsel for Punjab told the court that an explanation has been sought from the erring officials.

“In the meanwhile, the status report be filed by Punjab with regard to follow-up action taken in pursuance of the explanations sought from the defaulting officials,” Justice Sibal said.

The directions came on the second regular bail petition by Mander Singh in a case registered in March 2014 under Sections 302 (murder), 449, 379 and 34 of the IPC at Balianwali police station in Bathinda district.

Claiming that the petitioner was more than 70 years old, his counsel submitted that he was in custody since April 2014. Yet, only eight of the 22 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The petitioner was not a contributor to the delay in the trial; he was not even the prime accused, it was argued.

Justice Sibal observed that the trial court’s orders showed that he was indeed not a contributor to the delay. Besides, no other criminal case was pending against him. As many as 11 prosecution witnesses remained to be examined.

Justice Sibal added that the order sheets showed the trial was adjourned for want of prosecution witnesses on 34 occasions. The investigating officer’s examination-in-chief could not be completed for want of his appearance before the trial court on the last 18 dates, even as he was bound to appear on one such date. Justice Sibal ruled that the petitioner deserved to be admitted to regular bail, subject to the trial court’s satisfaction.