Prolonged detention without trial is unjust, and the right to a speedy trial must be upheld, leading to the granting of bail.

JUDGMENT :

(Vivek Singh Thakur, J.)

Since all these petitions arise out of the same FIR, hence these are consolidated in order to avoid repetition and are being decided together as common question of law and facts are involved in these cases.

2 Petitioners, herein, are in judicial lock-up in case FIR No.7 of 2020 dated 21.1.2020, under Sections 302 , 147 , 149 of the Indian Penal Code (‘ IPC ’ for short), registered in Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. They have approached this Court, under Section 483 of the Bhartya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), seeking regular bail in the matter.

3. In status report, filed on behalf of respondent-State, statement of complainant Rajan Kumar Singh has been reiterated, on the basis of which FIR was registered against the petitioners and other co-accused.

4. According to status report, on 21.1.2020, an information was received from ESI Hospital, Parwanoo, in Police Station Parwanoo that a person injured in a quarrel has been brought to the hospital for treatment, whereupon HC Vinod Kumar alongwith others had rushed to the hospital, where statement of complainant Rajan Kumar Singh was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he had stated that on that day, i.e. 20.12.2020, at about 11 p.m., when he was sitting in his vehicle at Sector-6 Parwanoo, near Negi Petrol Pump, he had received a call on his mobile phone from Raju, who was friend of crane owner Pushap Behl, requesting him to accompany Madan Lal in the crane, loaded with a vehicle, upto Delhi. Complainant had agreed for that and had come near the crane whereon vehicle of Delhi bearing registration No.DL-6CM- 4200 was loaded and crane driver Madan Lal was standing near the crane and a white coloured taxi and 5-6 young men standing around the taxi, were also there and the taxi driver was demanding fare, which was paid by one of those young men. Thereafter, the taxi driver left the place. Immediately thereafter, the man, who had paid the fare to the taxi driver, had started asking Madan Lal to drop them at Delhi immediately at that time, whereupon complainant had enquired Madan Lal about the status of fuel in the crane and Madan Lal had replied that fuel tank was to be filled. Thereafter, complainant, Madan Lal and a young man of Delhi vehicle boarded the crane and other persons sat in the vehicle loaded on the crane and crane was taken to Negi Petrol Pump and fuelled for Rs.2000/- paid by the occupants of Delhi vehicle and then they started towards TTR to proceed to Delhi, but suddenly it started raining heavily and upon this complainant Rajan Kumar Singh had parked the crane at a distance of 35-40 metres from the Petrol Pump on the right side of the road. On asking by young man, sitting in the crane, for reason to stop, Madan Lal had told that neither the wipers nor one of the head lights of the crane were working and there was some defect in the crane. It was further told by the deceased that he will take them to Delhi next morning but the young men did not accept that and had started scuffling and arguing with deceased Madan Lal in the crane itself, whereupon Madan Lal had telephonically informed owner of crane Pushap Behl that there was a defect in the crane and that the occupants of the car had been forcing him to move for Delhi and arguing and beating him, whereupon the crane owner had asked Madan Lal to lock the crane and to sleep in any other vehicle with further assurance that he had been coming on the spot, whereupon complainant Rajan Kumar Singh and Madan Lal got down from the crane and the persons from the Delhi Vehicle had also deboarded the crane and car and started beating Madan Lal by saying that in case he did not move for Delhi at once then they would throw him from the road in gorge, whereas Madan Lal had asked them to talk with owner of the crane who was coming there. Upon this, petitioners picked up Madan Lal and threw him in the gorge and had tried to overpower complainant also