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.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)

1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 151, dated 11.04.2023, under Sections 323/341/506/148/149/201 and 308 of the IPC registered at Police Station, Division No. 7, District Police Commissionerate, Ludhiana.

2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR read as under :-

3. On 07.05.2024 the following order was passed :-

4. Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been in custody since 19.07.2023 and no injury has been attributed to the petitioner. He points that on 07.05.2024 the interim bail was granted by this Court to the petitioner on furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds subject to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned and State Counsel sought time to verify the factual position.

On behalf of the State

On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for last 10 months and 11 days and has verified the facts mentioned in the last order dated 07.05.2024 which are found to be correct but he opposes the concession for grant of regular bail on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other FIRs also.

5. Analysis

From the above case it can be culled out the petitioner has already suffered sufficient period in custody i.e. 10 months and 11 days, the petitioner was granted interim regular bail vide order dated 07.05.2024, and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in the instant case, challan stands presented on 18.12.2023 and charges are yet to be framed and out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far which is sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period.

Reliance can be made upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic fundamental law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in "Hussainara Khaloon and ors (TV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna", (1980) 1 SCC 9 & Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction period of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the petitioner in other FIR is concerned, the petitioner is on bail in those FIRs and reliance can be placed upon the order of this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as "Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab" decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, while referring Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in that ca