The prolonged detention of the petitioner without trial violates the right to a speedy trial, warranting the grant of bail.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.

Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the case FIR No.340 dated 22.09.2016, under Sections 302, 34, 120-B of IPC and Section 25, 54, 59, of Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Sector 40, Gurugram..

2. Succinctly, facts of the case are the complaint was lodged by the complainant –Sube Singh wherein it was alleged that his youngest son namely, Mahesh was about 35 years of age was running a property dealer business. On 22.09.2016 at about 09:20 PM, he left his office in his Scorpio Car and he had gone about 30 steps ahead, a white colour XUV Mahindra without number plate came from the front then three boys of around 25/30 years of age carrying pistols and others weapons got down from the vehicle. They started firing on his son Mahesh and he reversed his vehicle and brought back in front of his office however all the three boys chased him and they kept on firing upon his son which hit at his shoulder, chest and eyes etc. The friend of Mahesh and the eye-witness namely, Sunil told him about the entire incident. On arranging the vehicle, his son Mahesh was shifted to Medicity Hospital where the doctor declared him dead. Request was made to take legal action against the accused. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered and investigation commenced. During investigation, petitioner was arrested in FIR No.852 dated 18.12.2016.under Sections 186, 307, 332, 353, 420, 476 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act wherein he confessed about his complicity in the present and hence, he was arrested in present case on 21.12.2016. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram granted him bail on 17.07.2017. However, the petitioner having jumped the bail, the same was cancelled on 30.01.2018 and he was declared as Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 14.09.2018. Later on, he was arrested again in another FIR on 30.04.2019 and since then, he is behind bars. Petitioner again approached the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram praying for grant of bail in the present FIR however, after hearing both the sides, finding no merit in the same, learned Additional Sessions Judge, declined the same vide his order dated 05.09.2024. Hence, petitioner is before this Court by way of filling the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that neither the petitioner is named in the FIR nor any role has been attributed to him. He has submitted the petitioner was involved in the present case on account of his confessional statement made in another case. He submits that no Test Identification Parade was conducted and the present case has been planted upon him as he is involved in various other cases as well. He has submitted that in majority of the cases, petitioner has been granted bail. He submits that petitioner is the only accused in the present case who is behind bars from the last more than 05 years. He has further submitted that the complainant in the present case has been examined and he has not even supported the case of the prosecution. He submits that the custody of the petitioner is more than 05 years and the trial has not been concluded which totally violates his fundamental right of speedy trial. He thus, submits that petitioner deserves to be granted bail.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by counsel for petitioner. He has submitted that petitioner has duly participated in the commission of the offence and it has come during investigation that he is one of the assailants who fired at the decreased. He submits that one of the eye-witness namely, Jitendar Dixit who has been examined as PW-4 has identified the petitioner. However, on instructions from SI Anil, he has submitted that in all there are 08 accused and rest of the 07 accused are already on bail. It is submitted that out of 59 prosecution witnesses, 23 witnesses hav