IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudhir Mittal, J.
Sunil @ Sunny - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent - Respondent
CRM-M-23133 of 2023
Decided On : 12-05-2023
Bail - Criminal Law - The court granted regular bail to the petitioner under Sections 201 & 302 IPC after considering the period of custody undergone and the early stage of the trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 201 & 302 IPC. The petitioner had been in custody for over four and a half years, and only 6 out of 23 witnesses had been examined.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial was still in the early stages, with only 6 out of 23 witnesses examined, and the petitioner had undergone custody for 4 years, 10 months, and 7 days. Considering these factors, the court deemed it appropriate to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's custody period, the stage of the trial, and the request for regular bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the early stage of the trial in granting regular bail.
Final Decision: The petition for regular bail was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
SUDHIR MITTAL, J.
The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.317, dated 01.07.2018, registered at Police Station City Palwal, District Palwal, under Sections 201 & 302 IPC (Annexure P-1).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been in custody for more than four and a half years. The trial is still in the early stages as only 06 Pws out of a total of 23 Pws have been examined. The petitioner has clean antecedents and thus, he may be granted regular bail.
3. Custody certificate dated 10.05.2023 digitally signed by Sh.Sumit Panwar, Deputy Superintendent, District Prison, Faridabad has been filed in Court. The same is taken on record. A perusal thereof shows that the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 04 years, 10 months and 07 days.
4. Learned State counsel concedes that only 06 Pws have been examined out of a total of 23 Pws.
5. It is thus evident that the trial is not likely to be concluded at an early date. Keeping in view the period of custody undergone, I deem it appropriate to grant him regular bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. He is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
Petition allowed.
The court emphasized the need for expeditious conclusion of the trial due to the petitioner's long judicial custody.
The presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial necessitate the grant of bail, emphasizing that incarceration should be the exception, not the rule.
The fundamental right to a speedy trial and the changed circumstances justifying subsequent regular bail applications were central legal principles established in the judgment.
The prolonged incarceration and absence of recent threat allegations justify the grant of bail, demanding stringent compliance conditions from the petitioner.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.