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.5, dated 16.01.2024, under Section 308/341/148/149/506/325/323 IPC, registered at Police Station City-1, Sangrur, District Sangrur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been attributed with an injury having caused by an iron rod on the left thigh of the complainant but the same do not fall within the preview of the provisions of Section 308 IPC as is also evident from medico legal report presented along with the challan after completion of investigation.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner along medico legal report today in Court, which is taken on record. On a specific query put by this Court, he submits that it is a case of an injury given by a blunt weapon which has resulted into abrasion of 1X5 cms.

4. Be that as it may, having regard to the assertions made hereinabove and the fact that nothing is to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner who is attributed an injury which cannot be conclusively held to be covered under Section 308 IPC as has been recorded in the challan by Dr. Loveraj, Civil Hospital, Sangrur who has opined that injuries are simple in nature after conducting X-ray and CT Scan added with the fact that challan stands presented on 09.06.2024, investigation is complete, charges are yet to be framed, 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 (IV) v. Home Secretary, Stale of 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 laid down by this Court in the orders passed in this writ petition and in subsequent cases from time to time. Sympathy for the undertrials who are in jail for long terms on account of the pendency of cases has to be balanced having regard to the impact of crime, more particularly, serious crime, on society and these considerations have to be weighed having regard to the fact-situations in pending cases. While there can be no doubt that trials of those accused of crimes should be disposed of as early as possible, general orders in regard to judge strength of subordinate judiciary in each State must be attended to, and its functioning overseen, by the High Court of the State concerned. We share the sympathetic concern of the learned counsel for the petitioners that undertrials should not languish in jails for long spells merely on account of their inability to meet monetary