1982 INSC 0224
                                               Khatri and Others (V)

                                                           Vs

                                             State of Bihar and Others

                                          Writ Petition No. 5670 of 1980

                                  (P. N. Bhagwati, A. P. Sen, R. S. Pathak JJ)

                                                      25.11.1982

                                                        ORDER

1. The learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mrs. Hingorani has made an application to us that
Pawan Kumar, one of the petitioners in the writ petition, has completed his vocational training on
August 23, 1982 and he has been given as a grant by the State Government for being used by him to
establish himself in some business, profession or vocation after the completion of his petitioner
Pawan Kumar has completed his vocational training at the National Institute for Visually
Handicapped, Dehra Dun, we would direct that on his filling an affidavit in this Court within three
weeks from today to the effect that he will spend the amount of Rs. 15000 and interest which is
lying deposited in the Bank in his name, for the purpose of establishing himself in some business
profession or vocation preferably a vocation in which he has received training, the amount of Rs.
15000 together with interest shall be handed over to him. The petitioner Pawan Kumar fill file in
this Court within six months from the date when the said amount is withdrawn by him, a statement
of account showing how that amount has been spent by him on rehabilitating himself by setting up
some business or vocation.

2. Miss Subashini, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of C. B. I. has submitted to us a chart
showing the progress of the cases pending in the court of H. P. Chakravarti, Special Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Patna. This chart has been submitted to us pursuant to the order made by us
on August 31, 1982, We made that order only with a view to ensuring that the prosecution launched
by the C. B. I. on the basis of their investigation are conducted speedily and there is no undue delay
in proceeding with the prosecutions. This order had to be made by us because we found in the
course of several cases coming before us from the State of Bihar that prosecutions are considerably
delayed and in quite a few cases they are not started for quite a long period after the lodging of the
first information reports and in some cases even after the filling of the charge-sheets. We were not
concerned at all with the result of the trial in these cases nor was our order at any time designed to
prejudice the fair trial of the accused. What we wanted to ensure was only a proper and speedy trial
of the accused which it can hardly be disputed is absolutely necessary in public interest. In facts,
when Mrs. Hingorani learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, applied to the Court for
disclosure of the report investigation carried out by C. B. I. we rejected her request since we felt that
disclosure of the C. B. I. report might prejudice the fair trial of the accused. Mrs. Hingorani also
applied to us on a previous occasion for fixing an early date of hearing of the writ petition for
purpose of determining the question as to whether the State is liable to pay compensation to the
blinded prisoners on the basis that the petitioners were blinded in police custody but since any
observations which might be made this Court while determining this question might prejudice the
fair trial of the accused, we declined that request also. Mrs. Hingorani has again repeated that
request before us today but for the same reasons, namely, that fair trial of the accused should not be
prejudiced in any manner whatsoever, we are not at present inclined to give any such direction as is
sought by Mrs. Hingorani. But, we shall await the progress of the trial. The trial must go on fairly
and speedily and in accordance with law.

</html