IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in cases involving serious charges and circumstantial evidence, the potential for flight and the need for a fair trial can outweigh the applicant's right to bail.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents-State.

2. My attention is invited to the order dtd. 26/4/2021 passed by this Court permitting the applicant to file an application for bail once the trial Court frames the charges. Thereafter, the Criminal Application (Bail) No. 808 of 2021 (F) was filed for bail which was disposed of by an order dtd. 18/4/2022. This Court held thus : "P.C.:

1. This is an application for bail. The applicant is facing prosecution for the offences punishable under Sec. 302 and 201 of the IPC for having intentionally caused death of Shabbir s/o Imansab Baikati.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the case is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness account of the incident available on record. It is stated that the main confession, made to the witness Shri Danayya Virupakshayya Hunasagimath and a recovery of the weapon under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act at the instance of the applicant. It is submitted that circumstances are not sufficient to show complicity of the applicant in the offence.

4. Mr. Amonkar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that the applicant and the deceased were labourers staying in one room provided by the owner Sachin Falari. It is submitted that thus there is a circumstance of last seen together and it is now for the applicant to explain the circumstances in which the deceased was found dead on account of injuries to his neck. It is submitted that in addition thereto, there are circumstance of extra judicial confession made by the applicant and the recovery of the weapon.

5. I have considered the circumstances and the submissions made. It transpired during the course of hearing that the trial has been commenced and the complainant has been examined.

6. Considering the fact that the applicant and deceased were staying together and the deceased was found dead and about abscondance of the applicant immediately after the incident as also extra judicial confession and the recovery of the weapon, I do find that a case for grant of bail is made out.

7. Criminal Application Bail stands rejected. Trial stands expedited.

8. It is made clear that the observations made are essentially of the prima facie nature and the learned Sessions Judge shall not be influenced by the same at the trial."

3. The ground on which the bail is now sought is the delay in concluding the trial. This Court in the above order observed that the trial has commenced and that the complainant has been examined. I am informed that since 18/4/2022, only two more witnesses have been examined.

4. The application for bail is vehemently opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the ground that the offence alleged is serious and this Court by the order dtd. 18/4/2022, has rejected the application on merits.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that long incarceration is the ground on which the applicant seeks his release on bail.

6. Though I do not propose to direct the trial Court to decide the trial in a time bound manner having regard to its workload but would surely encourage the trial Court to expedite the trial if possible. It is open for the applicant to approach the trial Court with such a request. There are 47 witnesses to be examined in all. The trial is likely to take some time to conclude in ordinary course. I do not propose to release the applicant on bail at this juncture.

7. Liberty to the applicant to apply for bail after a period of four months if the trial Court does not proceed substantially.

8. Application is disposed of.