2009 (1) TMI 905 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application of the petitioner u/s 302/364A/120B/201 of IPC.
2. Delay in trial and its impact on the petitioner's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Entitlement to bail under proviso to Section 437 of Criminal Procedure Code for women.

Summary:

1. Bail Application of the Petitioner u/s 302/364A/120B/201 of IPC:
The petitioner, a woman in judicial custody for nearly 4½ years, sought bail, asserting her clean antecedents and the adverse impact of her incarceration on her minor daughter. She had previously been granted interim bail and had not misused the liberty. The petitioner argued that the case against her was based on inadmissible disclosure statements.

2. Delay in Trial and Right to Speedy Trial:
The petitioner contended that despite directions to expedite the trial, only 24 out of 87 witnesses had been examined over a prolonged period, resulting in a breach of her right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court noted that while the trial had been delayed, some adjournments were sought by the petitioner herself, and the trial court had made efforts to expedite the proceedings.

3. Entitlement to Bail under Proviso to Section 437 of Criminal Procedure Code for Women:
The petitioner argued for bail under the proviso to Section 437, a beneficial provision for women. However, the court emphasized that the nature and gravity of the offense, the position and status of the accused, and the potential for tampering with witnesses must also be considered. The court held that being a woman alone does not entitle the petitioner to bail under the proviso to Section 437(4).

Conclusion:
Considering the nature, gravity, and heinous manner of the alleged offense, the court denied the bail application. The Sessions Court was directed to expedite the trial, preferably on a day-to-day basis. The petitioner's application for bail was dismissed.