DR. VINOD BHANDARIversusSTATE OF M.P.

                         [2015] 2 S.C.R. 354


A                        DR. VINOD BHANDARI
                                      v.
                            STATE OF M.P.
                   (Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 2015)
B'
                         FEBRUARY 04, 2015

         [T.S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]

          Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.439 - Bail -
C    Rejection of - Appellant, Managing Director of Medical
     Institute involved in the offence of illegal admission of
     large number of undeserving candidates to the medical
     courses by corrupt means - Rejection of prayer for bail
D    by courts below - On appeal, held: The object of
     keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability
     to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may
     be passed - Seriousness of the a/legation or the
     material in support thereof are not the only
E    considerations for declining bail - However, on account
     of delay in trial, accused cannot be kept in custody for
     indefinite period - On facts, the offence is of high
     magnitude and has the potential of undermining the trust
     of the people in the integrity of medical profession itself,
F    there is depravity of character and generation of black
     money - Thus, in view of the material on record and
     there being a potential of trial being adversely influenced
     by grant of bail, the order passed by the courts below
     declining bail upheld.
G
         Disposing of the appeal, the Court

         HELD: 1.1 The offence alleged against the appellant
     has serious adverse impact on the fabric of the society.
H                               354
      DR. VINOD BHANDARI v. STATE OF M.P.               355


The offence is of high magnitude indicating illegal      A
admission to large number of undeserving
candidates to the medical courses by corrupt means.
Apart from showing depravity of character and
generation of black money, the offence has the
potential of undermining the trust of the people in      B
the integrity of medical profession itself. If
undeserving candidates are admitted to medical
courses by corrupt means, not only the society will
be deprived of the best brains treating the patients,
the patients will be faced with undeserving and          C
corrupt persons treating them in whom they will find
it difficult to repose faith. In these circumstances,
when the allegations are supported by material on
record and there is a potential of trial being           D
adversely influenced by grant of bail, seriously
jeopardising the interest of justice, there is no
ground to interfere with the view taken by the trial
court and the High Court in declining bail. (Para 17]
[369-H;370-A-D].                                         E

     1.2 The appellant has been in custody for about
one year and there is no prospect of immediate trial.
When a person is kept in custody to facilitate a fair
trial and in the interest of the society, it is duty of F
the prosecution and the Court to take all possible
steps to expedite the trial. Speedy trial is a right of
the accused and is also in the interest of justice. The
prosecution and the trial court must ensure speedy
trial so that right of the accused is protected. If the G
trial is not completed within one year from today for
reasons not attributable to the appellant, the
appellant would be entitled to apply for bail afresh
to the High Court [Para 18] (370-E-G; 370-8-C]
                                                        H
356        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A     Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2005)
  2 SCC 42; State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi 2005 (3)
  Suppl. SCR 454: (2005) 8 SCC 21; State of Kera/a vs.
  Raneef 2011 (1) SCR 590: (2011) 1 SCC 784; Sanjay
  Chandra vs. CB/ 2011 (13) SCR 309: (2012) 1 SCC 40
B - referred to.

                       Case Law Reference

        (2005) 2 sec 42              Referred to.    Para12
c       2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454      Referred to.    Para 12

        2011 (1) SCR 590             Referred to.    Para 12

        2011 (13) SCR 309            Referred to.    Para 12

D        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
      Appeal No. 220 of 2015

      From the Judgment and Order dated 11.08.2014 of
  the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in M. Cr.
E C. No. 10371 of 2014.

          Siddharth Luthra, H. P. Raval, Kunal Verma, Keki
      Vajpei, Prasanna Mohan, Anando Mukherjee for the
      Appellant.
F        Mishra Saurabh, Vanshaja Shukla, Ankit Kr. Lal for the
      Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G         ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted.

      2. This appeal has been preferred against final
  judgment and order dated 11th August, 2014 passed by the
  High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Criminal
H Case No.10371 of 2014 whereby a Division Bench of the
       DR. VINOD BHANDARI v. STATE OF M.P.                 357
             [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

High Court dismissed the bail application filed by A
the appellant.

     3. M.P. Vyavsayik Pareeksha Mandal (M.P. Professional
Examination Board) known as Vyapam conducts various
tests for admission to professional courses and streams.       B
It is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of
M.P. Professional Examination Board Act, 2007. As per
FIR No.12 of 2013 registered on 30th October, 2013 at
police station, S.T.F., Bhopal under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") read with      C
Section 3(d), 1, 2/4 of the Madhya Pradesh Manyata Prapt
Pariksha Adhiniyam, 1937 and under Sections 65 and 66
of the l.T. Act, Shri D.S. Baghel, DSP (STF), M.P. Police
Headquarters, Bhopal during the investigation of another
case found that copying was arranged in PMT Examination,       D
2012 at the instance of concerned officers of the Vyapam
and middlemen who for monetary consideration helped
the undeserving students to pass the entrance examination
to get admission to the M.B.B.S course in Government
and Private Medical Colleges in the State of M.P. As per       E
the material collected during investigation, in pursuance of
conspiracy, the appellant Dr. Vinod Bhandari, who is the
Managing Director of Shri Aurbindo Institute of Medical
Sciences, Indore, received money from the candidates           F
through co-accused Pradeep Raghuvanshi who was
working in Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre, Indore
as General Manager and who was also looking after the
admissions and management work of Shri Aurbindo Institute
of Medical Sciences, Indore, for arranging the undeserving     G
candidates to pass through the MBBS Entrance
Examination by unfair means. He gave part of the money
to Nitin Mahindra, Senior Systems Analyst in Vyapam, who
was the custodian of the model answer key, along with Dr.
                                                               H
358         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A   Pankaj Trivedi, Controller of Vyapam. During investigation,
     disclosure statement was made by Pradeep Raghuvanshi
     which led to the recovery of money and documents. The
     candidates, their guardians, some officers of the Vyapam
    and middlemen were found to be involved in the scam. It
 B appears that there are in all 516 accused out of which 329
    persons have been arrested and 187 are due to be
    arrested. Substantial investigation has been completed and
    charge sheets filed but certain aspects are still being
    investigated and as per direction of this Court in a Petition
C for Special Leave to Appeal (C) .... CC No.16456 of 2014
    titled "Ajay Dubey versus State of M.P. & Ors.", final charge
    sheet is to be filed by the Special Task Force on or before
    March 15, 2015 against the remaining accused. Allegations
D also include that some high scorer candidates were
    arranged in the examination centre who could give correct
    answers and the candidates who paid money were
    permitted to do the copying. Other modus operandi
    adopted was to leave the OMR sheets blank which blank
E sheets were later filled up with the correct answers by the
   corrupt officers of Vyapam. Further, the model answer key
   was copied and made available to concerned candidates
   one night before the examination. Each candidate paid
   few lakhs of rupees to the middlemen and the money was
F shared by the middlemen with the officers of the Vyapam.
   The appellant received few crores of rupees in the process
   from undeserving candidates to get admission to the
   M.B.B.S. and, as per allegation in the other connected
   matter, i.e., FIR No.14 of 2013 registered on 201h November,
G 2013 with the same police station, to the PG medical
   courses.

        4. In the present case, the appellant was arrested on
       1
     30 January, 2014 while in the other FIR he was granted
        h

H
       DR. VINOD BHANDARI v. STATE OF M.P.                       359
             [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

anticipatory bail on 161h January, 2014. Second Bail              A
application of the appellant in the present case was
considered by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal
and dismissed vide Order dated 9.5.2014. Earlier, first
bail application had been dismissed on 5th February, 2014.
While declining prayer for bail, it was, inter-alia, observed:    B

    "In the present case, it is alleged against the
    accused that he in connivance with the officers of
    coordinator State level institution (VYAPAM) in lieu
    of huge amount got the candidates selected in the             c
    examination after getting them passed in the Pre-
    Medical Test (PMT) Examination, which is
    mandatory and important for admission in the
    medical education institution. According to the
    prosecution, applicant snatched right of deserving            D
    and scholar students, he got selected ineligible
    candidates in the field of medical education. This
    case is not only related to economic offence, rather
    apart from depriving rights of deserving and scholar
    students, it is related to the human life and health."        E

     5. The Division Bench of the High Court, in its Order,
referred to the supplementary cha/fan filed against the
appellant on 24th April, 2014, indicating the following
material:                                                         F

    "Offence of the accused :

     The accused Dr. Vinod Bhandari has been the
    Managing Director of S.A.l.M.S., Indore and prior             G
    to the PM. T Examination 2012 he had in collusion
    with Nitin Mahindra, Senior System Analyst of
    Vyapam, for getting some of his candidates passed
    in the PM. T Examination, 2012 and stating to
                                                                 H
     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A   send list of his candidates and cash amount
    through his General Manager Pradeep
    Raghuvanshi, subsequently he sent list of his 08
    candidates and 60 lakh rupees in cash through
    his General Manager and 07 candidates out of
8   aforesaid candidates were got passed by using
    unfair means with the connivance of Nitin Mahindra
    by way of filling up the circles in their O.M.R.
    sheets and received the amount in illegally manner
    by hatching conspiracy which has been recovered/
c   seized from his General Manager Pradeep
    Raghuvanshi. In this manner, the accused has
    committed a serious crime in well designed
    conspiracy by hatching conspiracy and committed
    organized crime.
D
    Evidences available against the accused :-

    1. The certified copy of the excel sheet of the data
       retrieved from the hard disc seized from the
E      office of the accused Nitin Mahindra;

    2. The documents, note sheets and the activity
       chart of PM. T. Examination, 2012 seized from
       Vyapam;
F
    3. The list of 150 candidates seized from Shri
       Aurbindo Institute of Medical Sciences College,
       Indore in respect of M.B.B.S. admission for the
       session 2012-13 at the instanced of the accused
G      Dr. Bhandari;

    4. Memorandums of other accused persons;

    5. The seizure memo of the amount seized from
       Pradeep Raghuvanshi."
H
       DR. VINOD BHANDARI v. STATE OF M.P.                  361
             [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

    6. While declining bail, the High Court observed :       A

    "To put it differently after considering all aspects
    of the matter as the material already placed along
    with the first charge-sheet prima facie indicates
    complicity of the applicant in the commission of         B
    the crime and is not a case of no evidence against
    the applicant at all; coupled with the fact that if
    the charge is proved against the applicant, the
    offence is punishable with life sentence; as the
    role of the applicant is being part of the conspiracy    c
    and is the kingpin; further that the applicant is
    allegedly involved in huge money transaction
    including to sponsor 8 candidates who were to
    appear in the VYAPAM examination; and is also
    prosecuted for another offence of similar type of        D
    having sponsored 8 other candidates; and has
    the potential of influencing the witnesses and other
    evidence and more importantly the investigation
    of the large scale conspiracy is still incomplete;
    as also keeping in mind the past conduct of the          E
    applicant in going abroad soon after the
    registration of the Crime No.1212013 and returning
    back to India on 21.1.2014 only after grant of
    anticipatory bail on 16.1.2014, for all these
                                                             F
    reasons, for the time being, the applicant cannot
    be admitted to the privilege of regular bail."

    7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

      8. Main contention advanced on behalf of the appellant G
is that the appellant has already been in custody for about
one year and there is no prospect of commencement of
trial in the near future. Even investigation is not likely to
be completed before March 15, 2015. There are about
                                                             H
362       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A     516 accused and large number of witnesses and
  documents. Thus, the trial will take long time. In these
  circumstances, the appellant cannot be kept in custody for
  indefinite period before his guilt is established by acceptable
  evidence. Our attention has been invited to order dated
B 27th November, 2014 passed by the trial Court, recording
  the request of the Special Public Proseqitor for deferring
  the proceedings of the case till the cases of other accused
  against whom supplementary charge sheets were filed were
  committed to the Court of Session and till supplementary
C charge sheet was filed against several other accused
  persons. In the said order, the Court directed the
  Investigating Officer to indicate as to against how many
  accused persons investigation is pending and the time
  frame for filing charge sheets/supplementary charge sheets.
0
  In response to the said order, the Investigating Officer, vide
  letter dated 25th December, 2014 filed before the trial Court,
  stated that 329 persons had already been arrested and
  187 were yet to be arrested and efforts were being made
E to file the charge sheets by March 15, 2015 in compliance
  of the directions of this Court. Thus, the submission on
  behalf of the appellant is that in view of delay in trial, the
  appellant was entitled to bail.

F      9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
  opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that this
  Court ought not to interfere with the discretion exercised
  by the trial Court and the High Court in declining bail to the
  appellant. He points out that the trial Court and the High
G Court have dealt with the matter having regard to all the
  relevant considerations, including the nature of allegations,
  the material available, likelihood of misuse of bail and also
  the impact of the crime in question on the society. He
  pointed out that the Courts below have found that thare is
H
       DR. VINOD BHANDARI v. STATE OF M.P.                  363
             [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

a clear prima facie case showing complicity of the appellant, A
the offence was punishable with life sentence, the appellant
was the kingpin in the conspiracy, he had the potential of
influencing the witnesses, investigation was still pending
and the appellant had earlier gone abroad to avoid arrest.
                                                              B
      10. Referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the State, he points out that in the excel sheet recovered
from Nitin Mahindra, the appellant has been named and in
the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Dr. Moolchand
Hargunani disclosed that he had met the appellant who C
asked him to meet Pradeep Raghuvanshi for admission to
PMT and he was asked to pay Rs.20 lakhs. He could not
pay the said amount and his son could not get the
admission. A sum of Rs.50 lakh for PMT Examination and
1.2 crores for Pre PG Examination, 2012 was received D
from Pradeep Raghuvanshi who was General Manager of
the appellant's hospital and in charge of admission to the
institute of the appellant.

   11. We have given due consideration to the rival           E
submissions and perused the material on record.

      12. It is well settled that at pre-conviction stage, there
is presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a
person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the F
trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The
detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive.
Seriousness of the allegation or the availability of material
in support thereof are not the only considerations for
declining bail. Delay in commencement and conclusion of G
trial is a factor to be taken into account and the accused
cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period if trial is not
likely to be concluded within reasonable time. Reference
may be made to decisions of this Court in Ka/van Chandra
                                                              H
364         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan1, State of U.P. vs. Amarmani
      _Tripathi2, State of Kera/a vs. Raneef3 and Sanjay
      Chandra vs. CB/4•

          13. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra), it was
B     observed:

          "8. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be
          taken away except in accordance with the
          procedure established by law. Personal liberty is
c         a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21
          which guarantees the above right also
          contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by
          procedure established by law. Under the criminal
          laws of this country, a person accused of offences
o         which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in
          custody during the pendency of trial unless he is
          enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such
          detention cannot be questioned as being violative
          of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law.
 E        But even persons accused of non-bailable offences
          are entitled to bail if the court concerned comes to
          the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to
          establish a prima facie case against him and/or if
          the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded
 F        that in spite of the existence of prima facie case
          there is a need to release such persons on bail
          where fact situations require it to do so. In that
          process a person whose application for

G
      1. (2005) 2 sec 42
      2. (2005) a sec 21
      3. (2011) 1 sec 784
H     4. (2012) 1 sec 40
   DR. VINOD BHANDARI v. STATE OF M.P.                      365
         [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

enlargement on bail is once rejected is not                  A
precluded from filing a subsequent application for
grant of bail if there is a change in the fact situation.
In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing
require that such persons be released on bail, in
spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the        B
courts can do so."

14. In Amarmani Tripathi (supra), it was observed :

 18. It is well settled that the matters to be               c
considered in an application for bail are (i) whether
there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the
offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii)
severity of the punishment in the event of                   D
conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding
or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character,
behaviour, means, position and standing of the
accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being
repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the               E
witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger,
of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of
bail [see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi[(2001)
4 SCC 280] and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi
Admn.) [(1978) 1 SCC 118]. While a vague                     F
a/legation that the accused may tamper with the
evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to
refuse bail, if the accused is of such character
that his mere presence at large would intimidate
the witnesses or if there is material to show that           G
he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper
with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We
may also refer to the following principles relating
to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra
                                                             H
366    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A     Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7 SCC 528]: (SCC
      pp. 535-36, para 11)

        "11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of
        bail is very well settled. The court granting
B       bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious
        manner and not as a matter of course. Though
        at the stage of granting bail a detailed
        examination of evidence and elaborate
        documentation of the merit of the case need
c       not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate
        in such orders reasons for prima facie
        concluding why bail was being granted
        particularly where the accused is charged of
        having committed a serious offence. Any order
D       devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-
        application of mind. It is also necessary for
        the court granting bail to consider among other
        circumstances, the following factors also
        before granting bail; they are:
E
        (a) The nature of accusation and the severity
        of punishment in case of conviction and the
        nature of supporting evidence.

F       (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering
        with the witness or apprehension of threat to
        the complainant.

        (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in
        support of the charge. (See Ram Govind
G
        Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC
        598]1 and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC
        338.)"

      22. While a detailed examination of the evidence
H
   DR. VINOD BHANDARI v. STATE OF M.P.                 367
         [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

is to be avoided while considering the question of      A
bail, to ensure that there is no prejudging and no
prejudice, a brief examination to be satisfied about
the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case
is necessary. An examination of the material in
this case, set out above, keeping in view the           B
aforesaid principles, disclose prima facie, the
existence of a conspiracy to which Amarmani and
Madhumani were parties. The contentions of the
respondents that the confessional statement of
Rohit Chaturvedi is inadmissible in evidence and        c
that that .should be excluded from consideration,
for the purpose of bail is untenable. This Court
had negatived a somewhat similar contention in
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar thus: (SCC p. 538, para
                                                        D
19)

  "19. The next argument of learned counsel
  for the respondent is that prima facie the
 prosecution has failed to produce any material
 to implicate the respondent in the crime of            E
 conspiracy. In this regard he submitted that
 most of the witnesses have already turned
 hostile. The only other evidence available to
 the prosecution to connect the respondent with
                                                        F
 the crime is an alleged confession of the co-
 accused which according to the learned
 counsel was inadmissible in evidence.
 Therefore, he contends that the High Court
 was justified in granting bail since the               G
 prosecution has failed to establish even a
 prima facie case against the respondent. From
 the High Court order we do not find this as a
 ground for granting bail. Be that as it may, we
                                                        H
368     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 2 S.C.R.


A        think that this argument is too premature for
         us to accept. The admissibility or otherwise of
         the confessional statement and the effect of
         the evidence already adduced by the
         prosecution and the merit of the evidence that
B        may be adduced hereinafter including that of
         the witnesses sought to be recalled are all
         matters to be considered at the stage of the
         trial."

c      15. In Raneef (supra), it was observed :

      · "15. In deciding bail applications an important factor
        which should certainly be taken into consideration
        by the court is the delay in concluding the trial.
D       Often this takes several years, and if the accused
        is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will
        restore so many years of his life spent in custody?
        Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most
        basic of all the fundamental rights in our
E       Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course
        this is not the only factor, but if is certainly one of
        the important factors in deciding whether to grant
        bail. In the present case the respondent has
        already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in
F       Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no
        reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor
        incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr.
        Manette in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two
        Cities, who forgot his profession and even his
G       name in the Bastille."

       16. In Sanjay Chandra (supra), it was observed :

       "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid
H
       DR. VINOD BHANDARI v. STATE OF M.P.                    369
             [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

    down from the earliest times that the object of bail       A
    is to secure the appearance of the accused person
    at his tria/"by reasonable amount of bail. The object
    of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.
    Deprivation of liberty must be considered a
    punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an        B
    accused person will stand his trial when called
    upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to
    the principle that punishment begins after
    conviction, and that every man is deemed to be
    innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
                                                               c
     24. In the instant case, we have already noticed
     that the ''pointing finger of accusation" against the
    appellants is "the seriousness of the charge". The
    offences alleged are economic offences which               D
    have resulted in loss to the State exchequer.
     Though, they contend that there is a possibility of
    the appellants tampering with the witnesses, they
    have not placed any material in support of the
    allegation. In our view, seriousness of the charge         E
    is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations
    while considering bail applications but that is not
    the only test or the factor: the other factor that
    also requires to be taken note of is the punishment
                                                               F
    that could be imposed after trial and conviction,
    both under the Penal Code and the Prevention of
    Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only
    test, we would not be balancing the constitutional
    rights but rather "recalibrating the scales ofjustice".    G
     17. In the light of above settled principles of law dealing
with the prayer for bail pending trial, we proceed to consider
the present case. Undoubtedly, the offence alleged against
the appellant has serious adverse impact on the fabric of H
370       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 2 S.C.R.



A the society. The offence is of high magnitude indicating
  illegal admission to large number of undeserving candidates
  to the medical courses by corrupt means. Apart from
  showing depravity of character and generation of black
B money, the offence has the potential of undermining the
  trust of the people in the integrity of medical profession
  itself. If undeserving candidates are admitted to medical
  courses by corrupt means, not only the society will be
  deprived of the best brains treating the patients, the patients
C will be faced with undeserving and corrupt persons treating
  them in whom they will find it difficult to repose faith. In
  these circumstances, when the allegations are supported
  by material on record and there is a potential of trial being
  adversely influenced by grant of bail, seriously jeopardising
o the interest of justice, we do not find any ground to interfere
  with the view taken by the trial Court and the High Court
  in declining bail.

       18. It is certainly a matter of serious concern that the
E appellant has been in custody for about one year and
  there is no prospect of immediate trial. When a person is
  kept in custody to facilitate a fair trial and in the interest of
  the society, it is duty of the prosecution and the Court to
  take all possible steps to expedite the trial. Speedy trial
F is a right of the accused and is also in the interest of
  justice. We are thus, of the opinion that the prosecution
  and the trial Court must ensure speedy trial so that right
  of the accused is protected. This Court has already directed
  that the investigation be finally completed and final charge
G sheet filed on or before March 15, 2015. We have also
  been informed that a special prosecutor has been appointed
  and the matter is being tried before a Special Court. The
  High Court is monitoring the matter. We expect that in
  these circumstances, the trial will proceed day to day and
H
        DR. VINOD BHANDARI v. STATE OF M.P.                         371
              [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]


its progress will be duly monitored. Material witnesses              A
may be identified and examined at the earliest. Having
regard to special features of this case, we request the
High Court to take up the matter once in three months to
take stock of the progress of trial and to issue such
                                                                     8
directions as may be necessary. We also direct that if the
trial is not completed within one year from today for reasons
not attributable to the appellant, the appellant will be entitled
to apply for bail afresh to the High Court which may be
considered in the light of the situation which may be then           c
prevailing.

     19. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the
above observations. We make it clear that observations
in our above judgment will not be treated as expression of D
any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court may
decide the matter without being influenced by any such
observation.
Nidhi Jain                                    Appeal disposed of.