Prolonged detention without trial infringes the constitutional right to liberty and a speedy trial, necessitating bail for the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Deepak Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

2. The instant fourth bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant-Manoj with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 244 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of I.P.C., Police Station-Nidhauli Kalan, District- Etah, during the pendency of trial.

3. First, second and third bail applications of the accused-applicant were rejected vide orders dated 05.04.2018, 18.07.2022 and05.04.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 21550 of 2017, 19321 of 2021 and 35581 of 2022 respectively.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 13.02.2017, but till date his trial has not been concluded. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21168 of 2024 has granted bail to co-accused Pancham Singh on the ground of delay in conclusion of trial, therefore, he may also be released on bail. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the early disposal of the case.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that so far as merit of the case is concerned, it is a case of murder. The first shot was fired by co-accused Pancham Singh at the deceased and second shot was fired by applicant-Manoj, whereby deceased succumbed to injuries. Eye-witness Yogesh @ Mintu has been examined before the trial court as PW-2 and he supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that considering the statement /examination-in-chief of PW-1, wherein he has attributed the role of firing to the applicant and co-accused Pancham Singh as well as the fact that third bail application of co-accused Pancham Singh was rejected by the Coordinate Bench, the third bail application of the applicant was also rejected. Now this fourth bail application, which has been filed mainly on the ground of long incarceration of the applicant and inordinate delay in concluding the trial as well as plea of parity with the bail order of co-accused Pancham Singh, who has now been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench as noted above.

7. This Court considering the aforesaid facts, vide order dated27.09.2024 had called a report from the concerned Presiding Officer with regard to present status of trial of the applicant. In compliance thereof trial court submitted its report dated14.10.2024 mentioning following dates and events:-

i-F.I.R. was lodged on 23.08.2016.

ii-Charge sheet was submitted on 22.11.2016.

iii-Case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 28.11.2016.

iv-Charge against the accused-applicant was framed on15.01.2018.

v-Examination-in-chief of PW-1 was recorded on 09.07.2018.

vi-Cross-examination of PW-1 was done on 26.11.2018,18.02.2019 and 06.09.2019.

vii-Examination-in-chief of PW-2 was recorded on 01.11.2022.

viii-Cross-examination of PW-2 was done on 03.11.2022,15.06.2023 and 16.06.2023.

ix-Examination-in-chief of PW-3 was recorded on 13.03.2024.

x-Examination-in-chief of PW-4 was recorded on 30.07.2024. xi-Examination-in-chief of PW-5 was recorded on 30.07.2024.

xii-Examination-in-chief of PW-6 was recorded on 30.07.2024.

xiii-Cross-examination of PW-4 was done on 14.08.2024. xiv-Cross-examination of PW-5 was done on 15.10.2024.

8. Vide order of this Court dated 27.09.2024, the Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow was also directed to file his personal affidavit indicating therein as to why prosecution is not producing the prosecution witnesses before the trial court even in heinous matters