Successive bail applications require substantial change in circumstances; mere delay in trial does not suffice for bail in serious offenses.

JUDGMENT :

Sushil Kukreja, J.

1. By way of instant petition filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”), the petitioner is seeking bail in Case FIR No. 35/2022, dated 20.02.2022, under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”), registered at Police Station Damtal, District Kangra, H.P.

2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition can be summarized as under:

(a) On 20.02.2022, around 08:45 a.m., on the basis of some information, the police party rushed to the spot near Sangam Dhaba and found dead body of a person lying there. The deceased person had sustained injuries on his left eye, back side of his head and on his right hand. Police did not find any document relating to the identity of the deceased. Police found blood stained bricks, stones and soil around the dead body and despite inquiries from the local persons, the identity of the deceased could not be ascertained. Subsequently, a forensic team visited the spot and collected scientific samples for analysis. The place of occurrence was photographed. Thereafter, the police registered a case under the apt Sections of IPC and the investigation commenced. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination to Civil Hospital, Nurpur, but due to lack of facilities for conducting postmortem examination at Civil Hospital, Nurpur, postmortem examination was conducted at RPGMC, Tanda.

(b) On 21.02.2022 one Bhajan Singh, visited the police station, and identified the deceased to be his nephew Kanchan Singh. The dead body was handed over to him for performing last rites. The statement of eye witness Surinder was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded and videographed. He stated that he used to work in the Sangam Dhaba and on 19.02.2022 deceased Kanchan came there and asked the owner-Satnaam for a room. On being asked the deceased did not have his Aadhar card, so the owner refused to give him room. After 10 minutes deceased again came there and the owner gave him a room for Rs.700. The deceased went inside the room and started consuming liquor and afterwards he started roaming in between Dhaba and the room. Surinder further stated that owner of the dhabha went to his house around 11:00 p.m. and son of the owner, Lovely (petitioner herein), who was also inebriated, was in the dhaba. Surinder told the petitioner that the deceased was using abusive language, on this the petitioner went to the room of the deceased and a scuffle started between the petitioner and the deceased. The petitioner pushed the deceased, resultantly his head struck against the wall and he fell unconscious and blood started oozing out. Thereafter, the petitioner carried the deceased on his shoulder and brought him down. The petitioner closed the shutter of the dhaba and he told Surinder that he would throw the deceased. Surinder also stated that thereafter he went to sleep and through the window of his room, he saw the petitioner throwing the deceased on a stack of soil and bricks and the petitioner also took the mobile phone of the deceased and gave a blow on the head of the deceased with a brick. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 22.2.2022. After completion of the investigation, police presented the challan in the learned Trial Court.

3. The bail application has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 22.02.2022 and the trial is not going to be completed in near future, as till date, out of total 21 witnesses cited by the prosecution only 12 witnesses have been examined, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail, as no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for an unlimited period. He further contended that there is inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, which infringes upon t