IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the right to speedy trial, the presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage, and the potential injustice of prolonged pre-trial incarceration.

JUDGMENT :

SATYEN VAIDYA, J.

1. This is successive bail application of the petitioner with a prayer to release him on bail in case FIR No. 20 of 2021, dated 06.02.2021, registered under Sections 302, 307 & 342 of IPC at Police Station, Gagret, District Una, H.P.

2. The petitioner is facing charges under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. It is alleged against him that he caused the death of his two year old daughter by inflicting injuries on her person and also attempted to commit murder of his wife. The matrimonial discord and unpleasant relations between petitioner and his wife are alleged to be the cause of dispute. The incident had taken place on 06.02.2021 in the bed room of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the implication of petitioner is false. The petitioner had no intent to cause the death of his daughter. There was an altercation and fight between the petitioner and his wife in which the petitioner had also received injuries and the child became unintentional victim. It has also been submitted that the trial of the case has been unduly delayed and the right of petitioner of speedy trial has been violated.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer on the grounds that the petitioner is accused of very serious and heinous offence and in case released on bail, there is every possibility that he may influence the prosecution witnesses.

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

6. The petitioner has been charged for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 342 of IPC.

7. The instant petition has been successively filed by the petitioner. It is trite law that successive regular bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. can be maintained only if there are changed circumstances and such changed circumstances warrant the grant of bail. Reference can be made to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673.

8. In Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

“30. Before concluding, we must note that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duly to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duly to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications.”

9. Earlier application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 31.3.2023. Almost one year has elapsed since the adjudication on last bail application of petitioner. Till date only 15 out of 30 number of cited witnesses have been examined. Even at the time of passing of order dated 31.3.2023 by this court a few of prosecution witnesses had been examined. The trial of the petitioner has been delayed and this by itself can be considered as a changed circumstance.

10. 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 (SC) 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