IMPORTANT POINT
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial infringes upon personal liberty.

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

Bail Appln. No.2898/2024

The bail application preferred on behalf of accused Naresh is sought to be withdrawn by the learned counsel for the Petitioner since the court is not inclined to grant bail to him. Still, he is permitted to withdraw the bail application. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of petitioner Naresh Chandra is dismissed as withdrawn.

Bail Appln. No.9320/2024 & 9399/2024

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant applications under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties; perused the material available on record and have gone through the niceties of the matter.

5. The bail granted to co-accused has been made to challenge before Hon’ble the Supreme Court as it is stated by learned counsel for the complainant. For a long, the bail applications of the petitioners have been adjourned for want of status of the above, but it is apprised to this court that till date the bail application pending before the Apex Court has not been disposed of. It is vehemently and fervently argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that similarly situated accused Ashok Kumar, Bhupendra and Vishal have been granted bail by this Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 14.12.2021 & 11.08.2023 passed SBCRMLB No.15535/2021 & 1671/2023 and despite having ground of parity, the present petitioners are languishing in jail. Since last two years, the trial is not proceeding speedily and till now only nine witnesses could have been examined out of the total 42 witnesses.

6. A glimpse over the FIR suggests commission of a gruesome murder of the deceased Sanjay Kumar Gurjar, but upon close scrutiny of the record and after going through the niceties of the matter, it appears that the incident took place on 22.07.2021 at 8.30 p.m. on a public road, near petrol pump and the FIR in this regard came to be lodged by Shirshak Kumar, the son of the deceased Sanjay Kumar on 23.07.2021 around 11:00 pm in the night, i.e., after 27 hours of the incident. The inordinate delay occasioned in lodging of the FIR in relation to murder of a policeman gives a thought to the Court to tentatively believe upon the submission of the defence that the story is exaggerated, embellished and some of the persons have falsely been implicated, and so also that the genesis and genuineness of the story has deliberately been suppressed. There is a substance in the submission of the defence that Shirshak Kumar, the complainant/first informant, who happens to be son of the deceased as well as his mother were not accompanying the deceased when the incident took place. There is a weight in the argument that if the first informant Shirshak Kumar and his