K. Lahiri, J.
1. Since 1977 the petitioner is in jail in connection with a criminal case. Now in 1983 the Government, of Mizoram has become slightly ambulatory in submitting charge-sheet and to commence the trial. The petitioner is in jail for over 6 years. There cannot be any alibi for non-completion of the investigation for so many years. There cannot be any excuse as to why the case could not be disposed so long. The petitioner is in jail for over 6 years.
2. What we find from the materials made available to us is that the only evidence appearing against the accused is the confession of the co-accused, as the petitioner states. We are confident that the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner. Aizawl, is fully aware as to the evidentiary value of the confession of a co-accused. We refer to (1) Kashmira Singh : 1952CriLJ839 . (2) Kalawati : 1953CriLJ668 , (3) Nathu : : 1956CriLJ152 (4) Ramchanclra : 1957CriLJ559 , (5) : 2SCR641 Haroon Haji Abdullah v. State of Maharashtra as some of the important decisions in point. The confession of an accused can only be used for leading assurance to other evidence against the accused. On the basis of a confession of a co-accused alone a conviction is not sustainable. What the State contends is that in support of the confession of the co-accused there are other circumstantial evidence. We are confident that the trial Court shall duly consider the provisions of Section 30 of the Evidence Act as well as the law laid down by the Supreme Court, We were about to pass an order directing the release of the accused-petitioner on bail with certain restriction or constrictions or conditions, however, Dr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Govt. of Mizoram assures us that the trial shall be completed very soon. Accordingly we direct that the trial of the accused must be concluded within a period of 2 months,
3. At this stage, Dr. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Mizoram produces a W.T. Message received by him in Court sent by the Govt. of Mizoram stating that the petitioner had once jumped bail and absconded in Manipur and brought to Aizawl on 9.8.1982. It is stated that, thereafter, the petitioner did not file any application for bail. It appears that the accused is also responsible for the delay. Further, he jumped bail and left the Union Terri^ tory of Mizoram. Under these circumstances, the learned Addl. District Magistrate shall consider his application for bail with great care and circumspection.
4. In the result, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Send a copy of the order to the petitioner in jail.