JUDGMENT :

N.S.Shekhawat, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant a regular bail in case FIR No.122 dated 21.08.2019 registered under Section 302 IPC at Police Station City Sangrur.

2. The FIR in the present case was registered on the basis of the statement/dying declaration made by Kuldeep Kaur, since deceased and the same has been reproduced below:-

"Statement of Kuldeep kaur wife of Jagsir Singh resident of Tibba Basti Sangrur aged 26 years, on SA.

I was in relation with Jatinder for many years and I used to talk to him on the phone and he was forcefully asking me to talk to him. Yesterday, he called me saying if I don't go to his house, he would tell my parents. When I went to his house, he poured petrol and set me on fire. Q Anything else you want to say?

Ans. Action should be taken against Jitender and his father's name is Harjit Singh.

Q. What else do you want to say?

Ans. Nothing".

RO&AC LTI Kuldeep Kaur. Sd. Simran Singh JMIC.CHD date 21.08.2019 AM. Patient remained fit throughout the recording of the statement Sd/- Dr. Akamsha Singh 21.08.2019 5.30 a.m".

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the present case on the basis of the alleged tutored dying declaration of Kuldeep Kaur, who had made statement before the police, at the instigation of PW1 Paramjeet Kaur, her mother. In fact, there was sufficient evidence to show that PW1 Paramjit Kaur had arranged the ambulance and had taken Kuldeep Kaur, since deceased, to Civil Hospital, Sangrur and further to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigharh. However, it was also apparent from the dying declaration that Kuldeep Kaur was having illicit relations with the petitioner and there was no question of forcing her to come to the petitioner and to continue relationship with him. In fact, there was no prior enmity between the petitioner and the deceased and the petitioner had no reason to commit the alleged crime. Learned counsel further contends that in the present case, the petitioner was arrested on 22.08.2019 and is in custody for the last about 05 years. He further contends that all the private and material witnesses have already been examined in the present case and there are no chances of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is the main accused and had set Kuldeep Kaur on fire. Even, sufficient incriminating evidence was collected against the petitioner during the course of investigation.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Ranjan Dwivedi Vs. CBI, through the Director General, 2012(8) SCC 495; 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 880" as follows

"14. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (supra), another Constitution Bench considered the right to speedy trial and opined that the delay is dependent on the circumstances of each case, because reasons for delay will vary. This Court held :

See also (1) Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (I), (2) Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (3) Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, (4) Hussainara Khatoon (VI) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Govt, of Bihar, Patna, (5) Kadra Pahadia v. State of Bihar (II), (6) T.V Vatheeswaran v. State of T.N., and (7) Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak.

88. Thus this Court by a line of judicial pronouncements has emphasised and re-emphasised that speedy trial is one of the facets of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 and the law must ensure 'reasonable, just and fair' procedure which has a creative connotation after the decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi."

The Court further observed :

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gudikanti Na