JUDGMENT :

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.

1. Lawyers are not physically appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

2. The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 125/2014, Police Station Bhupalpura, District Udaipur for the offences under Sections 302, 302/34, 307/34, 120-B and 449/34 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 7/25 and 8/25(B)(C) of Arms Act.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the first bail application of the petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 12.02.2020. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing incarceration for more than 07 years and out of 75 witnesses, only 31 witnesses have been examined so far. He further submits that there is no possibility of the completion of the trial proceedings of the present case in near future. Learned Senior counsel also submits the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for years together in the wake of the situation that trial is being faced by him under Section 302 of the I.P.C. Learned Senior counsel submits that in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (Criminal Appeal No. 98/2021 and Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11616/2019 Decided on 01.02.2021), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enlarged the accused on bail on the ground that the trial is not likely to be completed in a short duration and the petitioner had already suffered incarceration for more than 05 years. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail and whatever the consequences of the trial will be, he will face the same. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that there is no antecedent of the petitioner having been involved in any other case and in the cases which are reported against him, he has been acquitted by the competent courts. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the fact of the petitioner having suffered incarceration for more than 07 years is not disputed. On the strength of the report submitted by the S.H.O. Police Station Bhupalpura, District Udaipur dated 03.01.2022, he submits that except the case in hand, there is no other case which is pending against the present petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the requisite documents placed before this Court. The fact that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 07 years is not disputed and out of 75 witnesses, only 31 witnesses have been examined till date. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (Supra) held as under:

“14. We may also refer to the orders enlarging similarly-situated accused under the UAPA passed by this Court in Angela Harish Sontakke vs. State of Maharashtra. That was also a case under Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 21, 38, 39 and 40(2) of the UAPA. This Court in its earnest effort to draw balance between the seriousness of the charges with the period of custody suffered and the likely period within which the trial could be expected to be completed took note of the five years' incarceration and over 200 witnesses left to be examined, and thus granted bail to the accused notwithstanding Section 43D(5) of UAPA. Similarly, in Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe vs. State of Maharashtra, an accused under the UAPA was enlarged for he had been in jail for four years and there were over 147 witnesses still unexamined.

19. Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the res