JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral) 

1. Relief Sought

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been invoked seeking the concession for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 144 dated 20.05.2023, under Sections 387/506 IPC, 1860 (challan presented under Sections 109/120-B/201/387/506 IPC) registered at Police Station Loharu, District Bhiwani, Haryana.

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

3. Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The alleged allegations against the petitioner is that the mobile phone used in the commissioning of the offence has been recovered from the petitioner and this fact has not been denied that the offence is triable by the Magistrate wherein the petitioner has been in custody for last more than 1 year and 1 month. He submits that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars as no further recovery is to be made from the petitioner.

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 1 year, 1 month and 5 days.

Learned State Counsel on instructions from SI Virender Singh opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other FIRs. He informs the Court that in the present case challan stands presented on 20.09.2023 and charges stands framed on 14.11.2023 and out of 19 prosecution witnesses, 16 have been examined.

4. Analysis

From the above case it can be culled out that a mobile phone has been recovered from the petitioner used for commissioning of offence wherein he has already suffered sufficient period in custody i.e. 1 year, 1 month and 5 days 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 20.09.2023 and charges stands framed on 14.11.2023 and out of 19 prosecution witnesses, 16 have 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 would serve no purpose.

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 Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna", (1980) 1 SCC 98. 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 cases is concerned, 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 tim