The delay in the trial and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a previous case are relevant factors to consider when granting bail.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. This is the second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no.82 dated 30.04.2022 registered under Sections 279, 337 IPC (Section 304(1) IPC added later on and charges framed under Section 304 IPC) at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 01.05.2022 and the investigation is complete and the challan has already been presented and out of 24 witnesses, only 4 witnesses have been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the present case was registered on the statement of Mani Khosla complainant, who was an eye witness and the said complainant has been examined and he has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to the MLR of the deceased dated 30.04.2022 (Annexure P-3) to highlight the fact that it has been specifically recorded that breath of the deceased smelled of alcohol at the time of examination. Further reference has been made to the post-mortem report dated 02.05.2022 (Annexure P-4) in which, in the column with respect to the details given qua information provided by the police, it has been stated that as per the Investigating Officer, the case has been alleged to be of road side accident which had taken place on 29.04.2022 near Hotel Sunbeam back side Sector 22, Chandigarh when the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and was walking by the side of road and was suddenly hit by a car from the front side. It is further submitted that initially no offence under Section 304 IPC was mentioned in the FIR and the same has been subsequently wrongly added. It is also submitted that PW-2 Manthan, who is stated to be an eye witness, has, after recording his examination-in-chief gone abroad and has not been produced by the prosecution for crossexamination on 06.05.2023, 17.05.2023 and even on the previous date and thus the trial is likely to take time to conclude. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the previous bail application of the petitioner was withdrawn at that stage on 14.10.2022 and even thereafter sufficient time has lapsed so as to entitle the present petitioner to file the present second regular bail petition.

3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that there is CCTV footage recording of the occurrence and even as per the CCTV footage, it was the petitioner, who had driven his car of make BMW over the deceased and thus, the offence under Section 304 IPC is prima facie made out and has prayed for dismissal of the present bail petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted that the petitioner has already been granted regular bail in the other case and has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another”, reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in another case. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.”

It is further submitted that the admissibility and evidentiary value of the CCTV footage is to be determined during the course of trial. It is stated that even a perusal of