Case of the applicants is that they are claiming bail not on the merits of the case but on the sole ground of not getting a speedy trial or in other words because of the delay in trial.

2. Facts of the case are that the applicants are said to have committed murder of the deceased in broad day light and the case was placed before the committal Court on 05.01.2013. The matter after committal was registered as Sessions Trial No.14/2013 by the Sessions Judge who thereafter vide order dated 23.01.2013 transferred the matter to be tried by the third Additional Sessions Judge.

3. From the facts which has been provided by the applicants in the bail application it is reflected that the charge has been framed against the applicants for the offence u/s 302/34 of IPC and 25 (1) (b) (B) of Arms Act. It is further reflected that the evidence in the instant case started on 25.03.2013 and till 28.09.2013 about 18 witnesses have been examined. Subsequently, as the Court was lying vacant, the trial could not progress any further and therefore the present applicants moved an application u/s 439 of Cr.P.C before the Court below for grant of bail which was rejected on 22.03.2014. Hence, the applicants have now filed the bail application before the High Court and through this bail application also counsel for the applicants prays for grant of bail to the applicants on the ground of delay in trial.

4. Counsel for the applicants relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2013 CRI.L.J. 1547 and in the matter of J. Jayalalithaa and others v. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 401. Counsel for the applicants submits that the case of the present applicants is squarely covered by the decision and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred two cases and that in the instant case also since there is a delay in the trial, the applicants may also be enlarged on bail.

5. Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Dy. Advocate General representing the State opposing the bail application submits that in the instant case there are about 7-8 eye-witnesses and as per the case diary, they have all witnessed the present applicants assaulting the deceased and causing death by stabbing the deceased. Counsel for the State admits the fact that as of now the proceeding is stalled on account of the non availability of the Court as the earlier presiding Judge has been transferred to a different place and the new judge took charge only on 05.05.2014. He submits that since 05.05.2014, the proceeding has been initiated and the last date was fixed on 19.06.2014 and thereafter, the case is now fixed for evidence of the remaining witnesses on 26th July, 2014. State counsel after enquiry from the Public Prosecutor who was conducting the case has made a submission before the Court stating that in all there are 20 witnesses cited by the prosecution and out of these 20, 18 witnesses have already been examined and only two more witnesses are left to be examined that too one is a photographer and another is the Investigating Officer. Counsel for the State categorically submits that it is a case where there are many eye-witnesses to the incident who have already been examined and the only two remaining witnesses may have also examined very soon and therefore it is not a case where the applicants may be released on bail at this stage.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for either side and the evidences that are placed before me what are reflected from the documents is that in the instant case, the incident took place only on 29.09.2012, the present applicants were arrested on 30.09.2012, the charge-sheet was filed on 16.12.2012 and the matter was committed before the Sessions Court on 05.01.2013. On 14.01.2013, the Sessions Court took cognizance of the case and registered the case as Sessions Trial No.14/2013 and proceeded further with the trial