The court determined that prolonged detention does not automatically entitle an accused to bail when substantial evidence of guilt exists, underscoring the rights to a speedy trial within serious criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

H. P. SANDESH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

2. This bail petition is a successive bail petition filed by accused No.4. The accused earlier had approached this Court by filing Criminal Petition No.9687/2021 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.02.2022 and while rejecting the same, this Court has taken note of the fact that prosecution mainly relies upon the CCTV footage with regard to taking the victim in a car by the petitioner and accused Nos.1 and 2. It is also the case of prosecution that, in order to screen the evidence, wallet belonging to the victim was given to petitioner and the petitioner, in turn gave it to accused No.3. The Accused No.3 is the architect in committing the murder, who gave supari to accused persons and the same is recorded in CCTV footage which is collected by the prosecution. Apart from that, the call details of accused No.3, who gave supari discloses that calls are made to this petitioner, but the petitioner was not present at the time of committing the murder. But, all the way from taking him to commit the murder, he was very much present. Thereafter also, the belongings of the deceased was thrown by this petitioner and recovery is also made at his instance and he only pointed out the place where he had thrown the belongings of the deceased. Hence, this Court comes to the conclusion that not a case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Now, the present petition is filed before this Court contending that all the accused persons have been released on bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that 15 witnesses have already been examined as against 88 witnesses. The counsel would vehemently contend that accused No.3 was granted regular bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.4522/2025 vide order dated 27.05.2025 and accused No.2 has also been released in Criminal Petition No.9518/2025 vide order dated 09.09.2025. The counsel also would vehemently contend that there is a clear violation of Article 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution of India and as such, the petitioner is in jail for more than 4 years.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his argument relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court in VIHAAN KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. reported in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.13320 of 2024. Learned counsel would submit that the prosecution did not establish the motive in committing the alleged crime and conspiracy has been vanished away as far as admissions of P.Ws.5 and 6. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 12 not corroborates with each other and there are contradictions and improvements. The prosecution cited all hearsay witnesses and their statements cannot be believed. The petitioner was arraigned as accused only based on voluntary statement of accused No.2 and there is no identification parade of dead body and also the opinion of the Doctor with regard to cause of death is still pending. It is also contended that no Identification Parade was conducted to identify the accused persons and entire allegations are made based on the circumstantial evidence and this petitioner has been arraigned as accused only based on suspicion and mere suspicion or strong suspicion against the petitioner cannot take place of legal proof. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that petitioner also may be enlarged on the ground of parity, since the main accused have already been enlarged on bail and one of the accused has committed suicide. The prosecution is not able to secure the FSL report. The counsel also vehemently contend that though P.Ws.13 and 14 have supported the case of the prosec