The legal position relating to grant of bail in heinous offences like murder was emphasized, highlighting the need for prima facie reasonable grounds to believe that the accused had committed the offence, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of punishment in the event of conviction, and other relevant factors.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners, who are facing trial for offences under Sections 302/382/201/34 RPC before the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (‘the trial Court’ for short), have moved this Court for grant of bail in terms of Section 439 of Cr.PC.

2. The first ground that has been urged by the petitioners is that they have been arrested in the month of May, 2017 and since then, they have been in custody without there being any possibility of completion of trial in near future. It has been contended that only 04 out of 13 prosecution witnesses cited in the challan, have been examined so far and having regarding to the pace at which the trial is going on, it would take another decade for the prosecution to complete the evidence. Therefore, on the ground of long incarceration of the petitioners, they are entitled to grant of bail as the right to speedy trial has been recognized as a fundamental right which is being violated in the case of the petitioners. The other ground that has been raised by the petitioners is that the prosecution witnesses, who have been examined so far, have not supported the prosecution case and even otherwise, the whole case of prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence and there is a lot of suspicion surrounding the circumstances, on the basis of which, the petitioners have been implicated in the case. Thus, even on merits, the petitioners are entitled to bail.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the record of the case including the trial Court record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while making his submissions, has reiterated the grounds urged in the petition. According to the learned counsel, the delay in completion of trial is solely attributable to the prosecution and the petitioners cannot be made to suffer because of the delay in trial. The learned counsel has also referred to the statements of the 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. On the basis of this, it has been contended that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are not involved in the alleged crime thereby entitling them to grant of bail.

5. Learned Dy.AG, on the other hand, has contended that there has been no delay in progress of the trial and that the prosecution has been diligent in producing the witnesses before the trial Court, but because of intervention of Covid-19 pandemic for about two and a half year, it was not possible for the prosecution to either produce the accused before the trial Court or to ensure presence of the witnesses before the said Court. He has contended that the intervention of Covid-19 pandemic can, by no means, be termed as a reason attributable to the prosecution. Therefore, the petitioners cannot seek bail on the ground of long incarceration. It has been further contended that only four prosecution witnesses have been examined and most of the material witnesses in the challan are yet to be examined. Therefore, it cannot be stated that there are grounds for believing that the petitioners are not involved in the alleged crime.

6. Before coming to the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, let me give a brief background of the prosecution case.

7. It appears that, on the basis of a written report filed by PW Kala Ram, the father of the deceased on 18.04.2017, FIR No. 51/20174 for offences under Sections 302/382/201/34 was registered. In the said report, it was alleged that on 17.04.2017, Sh. Sunil Kumar, son of the informant had gone out of his house in connection with his business, but he did not return. On 15.05.2017, it was learnt by the informant that petitioners/accused, who were having previous enmity with his son, on account of a dispute relating to transaction between the parties and were extending threats to him, kidnapped him on 17.04.