The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the lack of direct evidence, the delay in trial proceedings, and the uncertainty of trial conclusion in granting regular bail to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral) - Petitioner has approached this Court praying for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 29 dated 11.01.2017 under Sections 279, 336, 427 IPC (Later Sections 307, 120-B, 34, 202 IPC also added), P.S. Civil Lines, Hisar, District Hisar, Haryana.

2. It is the contention of the Mr. Vinod Ghai, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR.

3. He contends that as per the FIR, the complainant Mr. Kamal Gupta on 11.01.2017 was going to the Court from his house while driving Innova Toyota Crysta HR-20AG-8659. One jeep, which was driven by a young boy of about 25-26 years, came at a very high speed from Dabara Chowk, Hisar and hit his car from front on the wrong side, because of which, the front portion of the car was damaged. The driver of the jeep started running away after leaving the jeep. At some distance, one scooty was parked and the jeep driver ran away by sitting on the scooty. It is stated that the driver of the jeep had intentionally hit the car. He contends that as per the said FIR, the same was against an unknown person. FIR was initially registered under Sections 279, 336, 427 IPC. Unfortunately, the father of the complainant Mr. Subhash Gupta was murdered on 24.01.2017. In the said FIR, which has been registered against the petitioner who happened to be father-in-law of one of the sons of the deceased, was also involved in the case and stands convicted. He contends that on 27.04.2017, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, chacha of the complainant, got recorded a statement that the scooty belongs to the company which was owned by Pawan Bansal, the petitioner, and was being driven by one Sumer who is the employee of Mr. Pawan Bansal-petitioner . Allegations were made that the accident had taken place because of the marriage having gone sour of the brother of the complainant. It is with an intention to harm the family of the complainant that such an accident has been planned by the petitioner. On this basis, the involvement of the petitioner was sought to be meted out leading to the addition of Section 307 IPC. Petitioner was arrested on 09.05.2017 and is in custody since then. He asserts that till date, the trial has not concluded and now because of the non-appearance of Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, chacha of the complainant, the prosecution witness, the hearing of the case is being adjourned. He points out that on 14.11.2019, no prosecution witness was present leading to the adjournment of the case. On 16.12.2019, again Sanjeev Kumar Gupta and the Investigating Officer were not present, because of which, bailable warrants were issued for 06.01.2020 which date being declared the Court holiday, the case was adjourned. Thereafter, on 19.03.2020, Sanjeev Kumar as well as the Investigating Officer did not come present despite the service of the warrants and fresh bailable warrants have been issued. Subsequently, because of the pandemic, no further hearing as such has been taken in the present case except for formal adjournment in the matter. He, on this basis, contends that more than three years have passed since the petitioner is in custody and the trial having not been concluded which still is not likely to be concluded in the light of the ensuing pandemic, the petitioner be granted concession of bail especially in the light of the allegations against him and the way he has been involved in the case. Reference has also been made to the order dated 09.08.2017 (Annexure P-7) passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in CRM-M-28279 of 2017 wherein a similarly placed co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Sumer has been granted the benefit of regular bail by this Court. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner be released on bail.

4. Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, contends that hand of the petitioner is bit large in the commission of offence. Not only Sumer, who was the employee in the company of the petitioner, but the scooty, which was being used by the jeep d