Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial are fundamental principles guiding bail decisions.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.

The amenability of all these petitions, for being decided through a common verdict, emanates from them being arising out of the same FIR, besides emanates from common relief(s) being craved to be reaped therein.

2. Through the instant petitions, the petitioners crave for indulgence of this Court for them being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR No.195 dated 10.07.2020, under Section 302, 148, 149, 323, 427, 452 of the IPC, registered at P.S. Israna, District Panipat.

Allegations Against The Petitioners

3. Succinctly stated, the allegations against the petitioners are that they, while being armed with deadly weapons, entered into the house of complainant and inflicted injuries to him and his family members. The outcome of this assault, was that, the son of the complainant, namely Ankush, succumbed to his injuries, while three of complainant's family members suffered injuries.

Submissions Of Learned Counsels For The Petitioners

4. The prime argument of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners is rested upon parity, as petitioners' co-accused, namely, Rajpal, Sandeep, Ram Karan and Anil, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court.

5. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have further submitted that not all the petitioners have been nominated as an accused in the FIR, rather some of them, namely, Deepak (petitioner in CRM-M-48946- 2023), Krishan (petitioner in CRM-M-61495-2023) and Ajay (petitioner in CRM-M-43222-2023) came to be nominated as accused subsequently, during the course of investigation. They have further submitted that since the petitioners have been behind the bars since July 2020, and, since the trial is moving at a snail's pace, inasmuch as, only 7 prosecution witnesses, out of total 26 prosecution witnesses, have been examined so far, therefore, the petitioners deserve the concession of bail.

Submissions Of The Learned State Counsel And Learned Counsel For The Complainant

6. Per contra, the learned State counsel, who is assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, by filing replies to the petitions, which are taken on record, has vociferously opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that, the son of the complainant has lost his life in the brutal assault made by the petitioners.

7. Though the learned State counsel has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners, however, on instructions imparted to him by A.S.I. Ranbir Singh, he does not contest the factum that pursuant to framing of charges on 19.01.2021, only seven prosecution witnesses, out of total 26 prosecution witnesses, have been examined so far. He also does not dispute the factum qua petitioners' co-accused (supra) being enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court.

Analysis

8. "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception". This basic principle of criminal jurisprudence was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, way back in 1978, in its landmark judgment titled "State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay", 1977 AIR 2447 SC, 1978 SCR (1) 535. This principle finds its roots in one of the most distinguished fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Though the underlying objective behind detention of a person is to ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory.

9. The right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person. However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, which is "the presumption of innocence", besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.

10. In "Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India", (2018) 11 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded the following:-

"14. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (