The court ruled that bail should be denied in cases involving serious charges like murder, especially when there is substantial evidence against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 278 of 2021, dated 7.12.2021, registered at Police Station Baddi, District Solan, H.P. for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The investigation is complete and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The charge sheet has been filed before the Court and the matter is listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has cited 28 witnesses out of whom 07 witnesses have been examined. There is no possibility of an early conclusion of the trial. No fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in custody. Petitioner is 24 years of age. His family is dependent upon him. He shall 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 informant was married to Geeta Devi (since deceased). Geeta Devi had gone to Firozpur to earn her livelihood. The informant used to talk to her on her mobile phone. She told the informant that petitioner Husnain used to force her to become Muslim. She left Firozabad and started working at Baddi. She informed the informant that the petitioner had also visited Baddi. He was compelling her to adopt the Muslim religion. The informant called his wife but nobody picked up the phone. Somebody called the informant on 4.12.2021 and told him that he was sending a photograph and that the informant should identify the person in the picture. The informant identified the person in the photograph as his wife. The police registered the FIR. The postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted and as per the report of the Medical OfÏcer, the deceased died as a result of sharp force trauma to the neck and major vessels including the respiratory apparatus leading to hemorrhagic shock. Police seized various articles. The police arrested the petitioner and recovered the mobile phone. One SIM card issued in the name of the deceased was also found with the petitioner. The petitioner recovered a knife with which he had committed the murder. The statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court. The statements of seven witnesses have been recorded and the matter is listed for prosecution evidence on 20.3.2025. Hence the status report.

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

4. Mr Parikshit Rathour, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no material to connect him with the commission of crime. The police had no call detail record and the customer application form (CAF) to connect the SIM to the deceased. The recovery of the knife at the instance of the petitioner is also suspicious. He further submitted that there is a delay in the progress of trial and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground as well. 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 the petitioner is involved in the commission of a heinous offence. The evidence is continuing and there is no delay in the progress of the trial. Hence, 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 Ajwar v. Waseem (2024) 10 SCC 768: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 974, wherein it was observed as under page 783