Judgment

Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral):- This is a petition seeking regular bail in FIR No. 32, dated 18.02.2020, under Section 307 , 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860 and Section 25, of ARMS ACT ( Sections 54 and 59 of ARMS ACT added later on) registered at Police Station Jodhewal, Division No. 5, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to the medical opinion as is evident from medico legal report (Annexure P-2), there is nothing to suggest that the injuries alleged to have been attributed to the petitioner are dangerous to life and therefore, by no stretch of imagination offence under Section 307 if IPC, 1860 can be invoked qua him. He has also asserted that on the plain reading of the FIR itself, it is abundantly clear that the gun-shot alleged to have been hit on the foot of the complainant.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. According to the custody certificate, the petitioner is behind the bards for the last 2 years, 3 months and 15 days.

4. Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that there are specific allegations qua the petitioner for giving fire arm injury, thus the petitioner has played an active role in commissioning of offence alongwith his co-accused namely Arjun @ Mani Napeli.

5. Learned State counsel has further drawn attention of this Court to the fact that the petitioner is involved in 7 other cases and he is facing conviction in one case arising out of FIR No. 302 dated 23.11.2016 under Sections 307 , 452, 323, 324, 325, 427, 148, 149, 506, 369 of IPC, registered at Police Station Jodhewal.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that now since the challan stands presented and after framing of charge the trial has proceeded further, no interrogation is required to be made and recovery of the alleged used weapon stands effected, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bards any more.

7. As far as the contention raised by the learned State counsel with regard to the pendency of 7 other cases is concerned, the petitioner is on bail in 5 cases and sentence stands suspended in the case where he has been convicted in FIR No. 302 dated 23.11.2016 under Sections 307 , 452, 323, 324, 325, 427, 148, 149, 506, 369 of IPC, registered in Police Station Jodhewal, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that after a lapse of more than two years, trial is proceeding at a snail pace at the hands of prosecution.

8. A Division Bench of this High Court in Rajender Singh vs. State of Haryana , 2022(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 85 has held that a right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes right to speedy trial and expeditions disposal which is also in public interest primarily showing concern on a following view point.

(a) the period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible. In other words, the accused should not be subjected to unnecessary or unduly long incarceration prior to his conviction;

(b) the worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace, resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial should be minimal; and

(c) undue delay may well result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend himself, whether on account of death, disappearance or non-availability of witnesses or otherwise.

9. This Court would go little further to consider that there is a difference between grant of bail under Section 439 and 438 of Cr.P.C., as compared to suspension of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.. In the case of suspension of sentence, the conviction order is already there whereas while considering the petition either under Section 438 or 439 Cr.P.C., there may be presumption of innocence which in fact is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence. Considering the