The severity of the charge of murder and the legal principles for granting bail in such cases were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE

1. The petitioner, who is facing trial for offence under Section 302 RPC before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua, has moved the instant application for grant of bail.

2. It is contended in the petition that the petitioner is incarcerated since 31st of December, 2012 and the prosecution evidence in the case is yet to be completed. According to the petitioner, there has been unexplained and unreasonable delay in completion of the trial of the case, which entitles him to the grant of bail. It is further averred that the prosecution is deliberately delaying the recording of deposition by PW Hoshiar Singh, who happens to be one of the relations of the deceased, which has contributed to the delay in trial of the case.

3. The other ground urged by the petitioner is that he is badly suffering from backache and his condition in the jail is worsening with each passing day. According to the petitioner, he is not being given proper medical treatment in the jail and keeping in view his medical condition, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

4. The petitioner has also sought bail on merits claiming that, whatever evidence has been recorded by the prosecution in the case so far, the same does not even, prima facie, show the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime as the evidence recorded so far is contradictory and unreliable.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the legal heirs of the deceased/victim, Mr. A.P. Singh, has also been permitted to make his submissions in opposition to the bail application. I have also gone through the record of the trial court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making his submissions, has reiterated the grounds urged by the petitioner in his bail application and submitted that the petitioner is facing incarceration without any trial and that he is in jail for last more than seven years. According to the learned counsel, the delay in completion of trial is solely attributable to the prosecution as well as to the complainant party and for this, the petitioner cannot be made a scapegoat. According to the learned counsel, the trial court vide its order dated 11.11.2020, while rejecting bail application filed by the petitioner, refused to remedy the wrong by enlarging the petitioner on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded so far and pointed out certain portions of these statements, which, according to him, amount to contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution case and on this basis, contended that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged crime thereby entitling him to grant of bail. The learned counsel has also referred to the medical report of the petitioner and submitted that the medical condition of the petitioner is deteriorating day by day. It has been further contended that having regard to the worsening situation of COVID-19 pandemic and the medical condition of the petitioner, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has referred to and relied upon the following judgments:-

1. Sandeep alias Raja Acharya v. State of Orissa (AIR 2017 SC 1568)

2. Kerala Union of Working Journalists v. Union of India & Ors. (WP (Crl.) No. 307 of 2020)

3. Ram Saran Pal alias Lallu v. State of U.P. (AIR 2017 SC 2880)

4. Sanjay @ Mausam v. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22305 of 2020

5. Sujit Tiwari v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (AIR 2020 SC 667)

6. Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. & Anr., Criminal Bail No. 153 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 9207/2019

7. Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 2018 SC 980)

8. Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (AIR 2021 SC 712)

9. Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharashtra & anr. (AIR 2021 SC 641)

10. Sanjay Chandra v. Centr