Point of Law: Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.

ORDER :

Petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2020 in case registered vide FIR No. 22 of 2020, dated 19.03.2020 under Sections 302, 392, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. The challan was filed after completion of investigation on 10.07.2020. The trial is still pending.

2. The prosecution case, in nut-shell, is that on 18.03.2020 a dead body was recovered by the police near railway track, Sector-5, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. The case was registered and on investigation, complicity of petitioner along-with two others namely Sandeep and Tinku @ Boriya was found. The challan has been filed on the allegations that all three above named persons, way laid the deceased (Hari Ram) with intent to commit robbery and in the process committed murder. It is alleged that Sandeep and Tinku @ Boriya caught hold of deceased in order to rob him, but Sandeep was over-powered by the deceased and in such process Sandeep inflicted blows on the person of deceased with knife which proved fatal. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was standing nearby the spot of offence and in fact Sandeep and Tinku @ Boriya had acted at his instance.

3. Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail on the grounds that he has been falsely implicated. He is the sole bread earner of the family and the financial condition of the family has worsened with each passing day, affecting future of his children. Material witnesses have already been examined. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that despite filing of challan on 10.07.2020, the trial has not yet concluded. Violation of fundamental right of speedy trial has also been alleged.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent- State and have also gone through the record carefully.

5. Seriousness and gravity of offence are the factors which have bearing on the fate of the prayer for grant of bail. Merely because the offence involved is of serious nature and attracts the severe punishment, cannot be the only ground to deny the right of bail. It has to be weighed and balanced with other factors such as the allegations against the bail petitioner and also the available evidence to prove such allegations.

6. Though this Court while deciding the bail application is not required to minutely scan the evidence collected by the police during investigation, still the material on record can be glanced only for the purposes of prima-facie assessment regarding the seriousness and gravity of allegations against the bail petitioner.

7. The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the crime. As per allegations against the petitioner, the other co-accused had acted at his instance. Actual participation in the crime has not been attributed to the petitioner. The allegation against him is that he was standing near the place of occurrence. The allegations are subject to proof.

8. Petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2020. Only about 10 witnesses have been examined till date. The trial is likely to take some time before conclusion. The contention of petitioner that all material witnesses have been examined has not been rebutted on behalf of the respondent. Petitioner cannot be incarcerated for indefinite period during trial. The right of speedy trial has been recognized to be a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

9. In Umarmila @ Mamumia vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-

“11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of the accused for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been held to be in violation of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616) Accused, even in cases under TADA,