IMPORTANT POINT
The right to speedy trial is a valuable right available to the accused, and delay in trial can be a factor in granting bail.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 57 of 2019 dated 26.4.2019, registered at Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 6.5.2019.

3. On 26.4.2019, police recovered a dead body from place called Kamli at Kaushalya Khud within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P., on the information provided by one Sh. Lok Bahadur. The case was registered vide FIR No. 57 of 2019 at Police Station, Parwanoo. On investigation, police found complicity of petitioner along with two others namely Amar Pal @ Bhanwar Pal and Naniya @ Raju for commission of offence. Police arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner and his other two co-accused had murdered Sh. Sheesh Pal S/o Sh. Shankar Pal. The dead body recovered by the police on 26.4.2019 was also stated to be that of Sheesh Pal S/o Shankar Pal.

4. Police has placed reliance on scientific evidence to connect the petitioner and his co-accused with the offence. The petitioner and his co-accused are facing trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan.

5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody for the last almost five years and the trial has not concluded. Out of total 28 witnesses, only 5 have been examined till date. As per the petitioner, his right to speedy trial has seriously been prejudiced and in these circumstances, he is entitled to bail.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer for grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner is accused of a very heinous crime. In case released on bail, petitioner may flee from the course of justice. It has also been contended that the petitioner is not a local resident of State of Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, there is every possibility that petitioner may abscond in order to avoid the punishment for the offence.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

8. It is not in dispute that the prosecution has cited total 28 witnesses in support of its case and only 5 have been examined till date. In these circumstances, the right of the petitioner to have speedy trial has definitely been prejudiced.

9. The right to speedy trial is one of the various manifestations of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and has repeatedly been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be a valuable right available to a person or accused of an offence. In Dr. Vinod Bhandari vs. State of M.P. 2015(1) Criminal Court Cases 294 (S.C.), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“12. It is well settled that at pre-conviction stage, there is presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of the allegation or the availability of material in support thereof are not the only considerations for declining bail. Delay in commencement and conclusion of trial is a factor to be taken into account and the accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period if trial is not likely to be concluded within reasonable time. Reference may be made to decisions of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005)2 SCC 42, State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, State of Kerala vs. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784 and Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, (2012)1 SCC 40.”

10. In Zahur Haider Zaidi vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019)20 SCC 404, a three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted bail to an accused of offence under Section 302 of the IPC in following terms :-

“1. Leave granted. We would presently consider whether the accused- appellant Zahur Haider Zaidi is entitled to be released on bail. The issue of transfer of case would be considered on a subsequent date after hearing all the accused.