Does that mean A1, although not party to the quash has to suffer if the stay continues on for years?
Doesn't the A1 have the constitutional right to speedy trial?
Lets take a scenario:
A1 to A4 have been remanded in a crime. A1 has different counsel and A2-A4 have different counsel. A2-A4 are enlarged on bail in Trial court where A1's counsel is yet to apply for bail for A1
A2-A4 move to HC for 482 quash and the HC gives them stay till further orders on all proceedings in an XXX/XXX case in the Trial court.
Does this mean, that A1 has to languish in jail, because his bail petition cannot be taken up for hearing in trial court because of the stay?
What about if the A1 is a poor person, unable to hire a lawyer for HC, does that mean, till HC decides on the quash, A1's continues to suffer because of other accused's petitions
If the stay is applicable to the entire case, the quash should also be applicable to the entire case and A1, even though he is not a petitioner, should be set free.
I was under the assumption that the stay would be applicable to only those who have applied for it and not the entire case in general. Cos in this case, if A1 wants to face trial, his trail will be delayed because of the actions of A2 to A4, which does not sound fair and actually goes against his constitutional right!