The right to speedy justice and the need to avoid indefinite detention of the accused without serious contention from the State regarding interference with the trial or evidence tampering.

N.S. SHEKHAWAT J.

1. The petitioner has filed the second petition under Section 439 Cr. PC with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.424 dated 23.07.2019 under Section 302 of IPC, registered at Police Station Jind City, District Jind (Annexure P-1).

2. As per the case set up by the prosecution, on 23.07.2019 an information was received by the police that on Bhiwani Road, Jind a person had been killed in the truck and the dead body was lying in the cabin of the truck. On getting this information, the police officials reached at the spot and noticed that Trolla (Big Truck) No.HR46D-2297 was parked there. The dead body of a person, having stains of blood and screw driver inserted in his neck, was noticed by the police. From the mobile number, which was mentioned on the truck, it owners Madan Lal was called at the spot and the owner disclosed the name of the deceased as Ganesh cleaner. Since Madan Lal son of Ramphal, resident of VPO Kharak Punia, Tehsil Barwala, District Hisar got his statement recorded, wherein he mentioned that he was running a transport company at New Grain Market, Karnal and was the owner of the Trolla (Big Truck) in question. He had employed Rahul son of Suresh Pal as driver and Ganesh, since deceased as a cleaner. At about 09:30 PM on 22.07.2019, he got rice loaded in his truck from Bala Ji Transport Moonak and the truck was sent to Bahalgarh, District Sonipat. On 23.07.2019, he had received an information that a dead body was lying in the cabin of the truck and on getting this information, he reached at the spot and identified the dead body of Ganesh, cleaner. Later on, he received a call from Rahul, accused, who told the complainant that he had quarrelled with Ganesh on 23.07.2019 and he had killed Ganesh in the Trolla (big truck). Even Rahul had also disclosed the location of Trolla and the place where it was parked. Consequently, the FIR was got registered by the complainant by stating that the cleaner had been killed by his driver Rahul, accused. On the basis of the said statement, the FIR under Section 302 IPC was ordered to be registered against Rahul, petitioner.

3. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition for grant of regular bail in the present case, however, the same was withdrawn on 25.04.2022.The petitioner has filed the second petition on the ground that the petitioner is in custody since 15.12.2019 and the trial is still at the initial stage and this may be considered as change of circumstance for filing the present petition before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was a case of blind murder and nobody had witnessed the alleged occurrence. The present petitioner had no enmity with the deceased and had no reason to commit the murder of Ganesh, cleaner as both of them were employed on the same truck since long and had no dispute with each other. Learned counsel further submits that even no incriminating evidence had been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and even there was only one injury on the person of the deceased, so the intention to cause death was also absent. He further contends that he was arrested in the present case on 15.12.2019 and only two witnesses out of total 19 witnesses have been examined and the trial was progressing a snails  pace. Madan Lal, complainant/owner of the truck had been examined as PW-1, who had implicated Rahul son of Suresh Pal, whereas the name of the petitioner is Rahul son of Soraj Singh and even the identity of the petitioner was not established.

5. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that he is the main accused and had been attributed the fatal blow. Even the delay in conclusion of the trial is no ground to grant the concession of bail to the present petitioner.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions in the light of the record produced before the Court.

7. In number of judgments, the Hon’ble Sup