Bail applications require a material change in circumstances for reconsideration after a previous denial, ensuring the accused's presence during trial without undue delay.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested on 15.1.2022, vide FIR No. 139 of 2021, dated 31.12.2021, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 325 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), at Police Station Padhar, District Mandi, H.P. The police have filed the charge sheet and the custodial interrogation of thepetitioner is not required. The petitioner has roots in society, and there is no chance of his absconding. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police received information from the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Padhar, on 31.12.2021 that one person was brought in an injured condition to the hospital. The police went to verify the information. The informant made a statement that he had gone to the house of Neelma Devi on 31.12.2021. The petitioner had also visited her home. The informant, Neelma Devi and the petitioner consumed liquor. They had some arguments. The informant left for his home at 7:00 p.m. The petitioner stopped him and beat him with a stick. The informant was rescued by Himmat Ram, who had reached the spot in connection with his work. The police registered the F.I.R. and conducted the investigation. The petitioner produced the stick used by him for the commission of crime. The Medical Officer certified that the informant had sustained one simple and one grievous injury. The police added Section 325 of the IPC. As per the opinion of the Medical Officer, the stick produced by the petitioner could cause grievous injury to the head. The condition of the informant deteriorated on 07.01.2022. He was brought to the hospital and was referred to IGMC, Shimla. He succumbed to his injuries on 14.01.2022. The post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted, and as per the report of the Medical Officer, the cause of death was septicemic shock caused by head injury. The police added Section 302 of the IPC and arrested the petitioner. The challan was prepared and presented before the Court. The prosecution cited twenty-two witnesses, out of whom nineteen witnesses have been examined, and three witnesses are yet to be examined. Hence the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Sarvedaman Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

4. Mr. Sarvedaman Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is delay in the progress of the trial. The petitioner has been in custody since 15.1.2022, and the prosecution has not completed the evidence within three years. The petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars indefinitely.

Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that there is no delay in the progress of the trial. The prosecution has examined 19 witnesses, and only three witnesses are to be examined. The earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Court, and there is no change in the circumstances justifying the grant of bail. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: -

“12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra