The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of expeditious trials, the prosecution's responsibility to produce witnesses in a timely manner, and the consideration of an accused's involvement in other criminal cases in bail decisions.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - These petitions, preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.271 of 2017 dated 07.06.2017, registered in Police Station Paonta Sahib District Sirmaur Himachal Pradesh under Sections 147, 149, 332, 353 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' in short) and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Petitioners, after remaining in police custody, are in judicial custody since July 2017. Main challan was presented in the trial Court on 30.08.2017, whereas, supplementary challan was presented on 01.12.2017. Now case is fixed for recording of evidence of PWs at Sl.No.13,14 and 16 on 19.11.2020 and PWs at Sl.No.17, 20, 21 and 24 on 20.11.2020. It is also stated in the status report that petitioner Navjot Singh was found involved in three other criminal cases i.e. FIR No.295 of 2005 dated 05.12.2005 registered under Section 307 IPC in Police Station Kharar District Mohali; FIR No.32 of 2011 dated 11.04.2011 registered under Sections 326, 324, 323, 506, 356, 427, 148 and 149 IPC in Police Station Mullapur, Garibdas Mohali; and FIR No.54 dated 25.05.2012 registered under Sections 302, 341, 327, 506, 149 and 120B IPC in Police Station Mator District Mohali and petitioner Manjeet Singh has been found involved in FIR No.79 of 2017 dated 01.06.2017 registered under Sections 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act in Police Station Mauli Jagran Chandigarh.

3. On the basis of material placed before me, in present bail petitions, it is apparent that Navjot Singh (petitioner in Cr.M.P. (M) No.902 of 2020) had also approached High Court by filing Cr.M.P.(M) Nos.267 of 2018 and 985 of 2018, but those petitions were dismissed, by a Coordinate Bench, as withdrawn on 16.04.2018 and 20.08.2018, respectively, with liberty to the petitioner to file afresh. Thereafter, Navjot Singh had again preferred Cr.M.P.(M) No.1017 of 2019, which was also dismissed on 24.06.2019 by the Coordinate Bench as withdrawn at that time, by taking note of the fact that bail petitioner was behind the bars for two years and by that time only two prosecution witnesses out of 20 had been examined, the Coordinate Bench had hoped and trusted that the Court below would make all out efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably on or before 31.12.2019. It was also observed that otherwise also, on judicial and administrative sides, this Court has been repeatedly advising the Courts below to take up the cases of under-trials on priority basis, so that their liberty is not curtailed for an indefinite period, if they are ultimately found to be innocent.

4. Co-Accused Gurjaipal Singh had also preferred bail application being Cr.M.P.(M) No.1628 of 2018, which was dismissed on 11.01.2019. At that time, his bail application was rejected on the ground that prima facie it had come on record that he was actively participating with the hardcore criminals, who even do not care for the consequences of using of fire arms. Therefore, at that stage, when only one witness had been examined, enlargement of the petitioner on bail was not considered in the interest of justice as plea of the petitioner, at that time, that victim and material witnesses, being officials could not be dissuaded or terrorized, was rejected for the reason that despite knowing that complainant was performing his duty as a police official/officer, the bullets were shot upon him on a highway on the barrier.

5. Thereafter co-accused Gurjaipal Singh was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2019, passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No.1480 of 2019. Learned counsel for petitioner Navjot Singh has referred observation of this Court, which reads as under:-

"4. In status report dated 28.09.2019, detailed particulars of listing of dates, when trial was listed for examining witnesses, has been given, perusal thereof reveals that at initial stage, examination of the witne