The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of specific attribution of any injury to the petitioner and the prolonged custody of the petitioner were key factors in granting the bail.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

1. This is the third petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.244 dated 31.05.2019 registered under Sections 148, 341, 302, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station City Kaithal, District Kaithal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 02.06.2019 (more than 4 years and 1 month) and investigation is complete and challan has been presented and there are 35 prosecution witnesses, out of which, only 14 witnesses have been examined and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the first bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn at that stage on 17.08.2021 and the second bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn at that stage on 27.07.2022 and in the order dated 27.07.2022, the trial Court was directed to expedite the trial proceedings but the trial still has not been concluded and several witnesses are yet to be examined. Reference has been made to various zimni orders, more so, zimni order dated 10.03.2023 in order to show that on the said date, no PW was present and bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.10,000/- were issued to summon the witnesses i.e., PWs-Sandeep and Rohit. Reference has also been made to the last zimni order dated 20.05.2023, on which date, the case was adjourned to 10.08.2023 as the Presiding Officer of the Court was on casual leave. It is contended that the petitioner was not named in the FIR as the FIR has been registered against unknown persons and the complainant is not the eye-witness in the present case and the eyewitness in the present case, as per the case of the prosecution, is Gurdev who has already been examined as PW5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per evidence of PW5-Gurdev, no specific injury has been attributed to any person much less the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the said PW5 has stated that he had identified Ashok Kumar (accused) who was his brother-in-law and the name of the present petitioner was disclosed to him by the police. Reference has been made to the cross-examination of the said PW5 in order to highlight the fact that none of the accused persons except Ashok was known to him by face or by name prior to the incident. It is contended that as per the affidavit of the Doctor, the deceased had suffered 6 injuries, out of which, 5 injuries were incised wound whereas recovery from the present petitioner is of wooden stick (binda). It is argued that even as per the case of the prosecution, enmity was primarily between the deceased and Ashok(brother of the deceased). It is prayed that apart from other facts, keeping in view the custody of the petitioner and the stage of the trial, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. It is also submitted that co-accused of the petitioner namely Ankit and Raj Kumar @ Raju have been granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 05.05.2022 and 01.08.2022 passed in CRM-M-17882-2022 and CRM-M-21430-2022 (Annexure P-3 and P-4 respectively).

4. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner along with other co-accused Ashok (brother of the deceased) had a dispute with the deceased and the present petitioner was friend of said Ashok and the petitioner and Ashok along with other accused persons inflicted multiple injuries upon the deceased, on account of which, he died and thus, committed a heinous offence and does not deserve the concession of regular bail. It is further submitted that there is one more case under the Prisons Act registered in the year 2022, against the petitioner while he was in custody.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in