The right to speedy trial is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty, and long custody without progress in the trial may justify granting bail.

JUDGMENT

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. - The petitioner has sought regular bail in FIR No.RCCHG512016S0014 (Annexure P-2) dated 06.10.2016, under Sections 120- B, 148, 149, 186, 188, 307, 353, 395, 427, 436 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, besides Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, registered at Police Station CBI, SCB, Chandigarh, earlier registered as FIR No.118 dated 27.02.2016 at Police Station Urban Estate Rohtak.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner along with other accused during the Jat agitation had attacked the residence and other establishments of the complainant. They are alleged to have indulged in arson and the buildings were set ablaze. Similarly situated co-accused have been released on bail by various orders, copies whereof are at Annexures P-6, P-7, P-8 and P-10. He also contends that no person was injured in the occurrence. The petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. He also states that the conclusion of the trial in the instant case is likely to take a long time as charges have not yet been framed while 137 witnesses have been cited in the challan. The petitioner is in custody for over 01 year, 01 month since his arrest on 28.08.2018. The petitioner is 30 years old Assistant professor in Computer Science and is a sole bread winner of his family which comprises his wife and two minor children.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for CBI contends that the petitioner was an active participant and one of the main conspirators who had incited the mob which had set ablaze several establishments including the residence of the complainant. Merely because the petitioner is in custody for a long time, would not entitle him to the benefit of bail. He also contends that the petitioner's participation in the crime was prima facie established through CCTV footage, his mobile location and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has relied upon the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi, (2005) 4 RCR(Criminal) 280 , Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 3 RCR(Criminal) 252 , Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, (2004) 2 RCR(Criminal) 254 , Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2008) 1 RCR(Criminal) 903 and Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi and Anr., (2018) 1 RCR(Criminal) 90 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Lakshya @ Pappu Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation in CRM-M39567-2017 decided on 04.12.2017. He also states that in case the petitioner is granted bail there is every likelihood of his influencing the witnesses. One of the co-accused namely Pardeep who has been granted bail by the trial Court had absconded and has been declared as 'proclaimed offender'.

4. Heard.

5. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had incited the mob which had indulged in arson during the Jat agitation. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in custody for over 01 year and 01 month and the charges are yet to be framed.

6. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the CBI are distinguishable on facts and are not applicable to the instant case. The judgment in the case of State through CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripathi (supra) pertained to the accused who was facing murder trial and was a serving Minister at the time of occurrence. It was also alleged that he had tried to tamper with investigation. His petition for bail had been dismissed a month earlier before the grant of bail by the High Court. It was in such circumstances that the order granting bail to the accused therein was cancelled by the Supreme Court. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V. Vijay Sai Reddy (supra), the accused was facing trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, there is no denying the proposition la