JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.583, dated 03.11.2022, under Sections 148, 149, 323, 307, 506 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act (Sections 302, 325 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar Nuh, District Nuh, Haryana.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is at parity with other co-accused Sajid @ Boda, who has been granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexure P-4. He further contends that the statement of the injured Niyaz Mohammad, on the basis of which, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 09.11.2022 i.e. almost one week after the alleged incident. It was submitted that earlier when the FIR was registered, no overt act was attributed to the petitioner and further, even in pursuance to the statement made by Niyaz Mohammad on the basis of which the petitioner was arrested, no recovery was made. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 30.03.2023; final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted long back; charges were framed way back on 30.05.2023 and thereafter, were re-framed in August 2023 after filing of supplementary challan; the trial is proceeding at an extremely slow pace and no prosecution witness has been examined till now.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record. He seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious and in case he is released on bail, he may try to influence and threaten the witnesses and may also abscond.

4. Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 01 year, 03 months and 10 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; the petitioner is at parity with the co-accused Sajid @ Boda, who has been granted the concession of regular bail vide Annexure P-4; the petitioner is not involved in any other case, meaning thereby, he is not a habitual offender; nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner; charges were framed as far back as on 30.05.2023 and were re-framed in August 2023, none of the prosecution witnesses have been examined till date, meaning thereby, the conclusion of the trial will take a long time for which the petitioner cannot be detained behind the bars for an indefinite period.

5. Even further, right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed under Article 21. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in "Hussainara Khatoon and ors (TV) v. Home Secretary, State o f Bihar, Patna", (1980) 1 SCC 98; wherein it was held as under:

"10. Directions given by this Court in Hussainara Khatoon (supra) to this effect were left to be implemented by the High Courts Hussainara Khatoon and ors. (VII) etc. v. Home Secretary, Bihar and ors. etc. -(1995) 5 SCC 326 - para 2 are as follows :

"2. Since this Court has already laid down the guidelines by orders passed from time to time in this writ petition and in subsequent orders passed in different cases since then, we do not consider it necessary to restate the guidelines periodically because the enforcement of the guidelines by the subordinate courts functioning in different States should now be the responsibility of the different High Courts to which they are subordinate. General orders for release of undertrials without reference to specific fact-situations in different cases may prove to be hazardous. While there can be no doubt that undertrial prisoners should not languish in jails on account of refusal to enlarge them on bail for want of their capacity to furnish bail with monetary obligations, these are matters which have to be dealt with on case-to-case basis keeping in mind the guidelines