JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 158 of 2020, dated 17.07.2020, registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra, H.P.

2. The allegation against petitioner is that on 17.07.2020, he gave beatings to his wife Smt. Praveen Kumari and thereby caused her death. As per post-mortem report, fourteen ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of deceased.

3. Petitioner was arrested on the date of incident itself. The trial in the case has already begun and ten prosecution witnesses have already been examined.

4. The bail has been sought on the grounds that the evidence collected by police does not prima facie disclosed the commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The conduct of the petitioner has not been cruel, rather, he himself had informed about the death of his wife. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner has already offered custody for more than three years and his right to speedy trial has been violated.

5. On the other hand, the prayer is opposed, on the ground that the allegations against petitioner are serious in nature. He is accused of brutally injuring his own wife, who had succumbed to the injuries within no time. The release of petitioner on bail, at this stage, can affect the fair trial as the petitioner may influence the prosecution witnesses.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record from police file.

7. The contention raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the material on record does not prima facie suggest the ingredients of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, deserves rejection for the simple reason that the petitioner has already been charged for the offence of murder by learned Trial Court after perusal of material on record and finding sufficient material to frame such charge. Petitioner has not assailed the order passed by learned Trial Court, whereby, the charge was framed against him. This Court while deciding the bail petition will not re-apprise the material on record and cannot arrive at a conclusion which may have the effect of setting aside the order passed by learned Trial Court in accordance with law. Thus, it cannot be said that the prima facie material does not exist against petitioner to try him for offence under Section 302 of IPC. However, the matter is required to be looked at from another angle.

8. 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.”

9. 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 accu