Back
G. S. AHLUWALIA
Subham @ Shivam – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
G.S. Ahluwalia, J. - This third application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail. The second application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 22.10.2021 passed in M.Cr.C.No.48169/2021.
2. The applicant has been arrested on 21.3.2021 in connection with Crime No.83/2021 registered at Police Station Tyonda, District Vidisha for offence under Sections 304B, 498A of IPC.
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that although the viscera report suggest that the cause of death of the deceased was consumption of poison but the witnesses are not turning up. To substantiate his submissions, the applicant has filed some of the order sheets of the Trial Court to show that the witnesses are not turning up.
4. From the order sheets it is clear that the prosecution witnesses Daulat Singh and Dolly Bai were present on 25.10.2021 but the counsel for the applicant himself got time to cross-examine them and, accordingly, at the request of the counsel for the applicant their examination was deferred. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for grant of bail on the ground of delay in trial. However, it is
Delay in trial does not necessarily warrant grant of bail. Trial Court should record examination-in-chief of witnesses if the defence is not ready to cross-examine them.
The examination of the victim is a crucial factor in considering bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
The severity of the charge of murder and the legal principles for granting bail in such cases were central to the court's decision.
The court established that in cases involving serious charges and circumstantial evidence, the potential for flight and the need for a fair trial can outweigh the applicant's right to bail.
Section 309 Cr.P.C. provides power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.
Grant of Bail - Right of under trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India may be considered and protected inasmuch as they should not be compelled to serve maximum punishing.
The delay in trial, the seriousness of the offences alleged, and the objections raised by the prosecution and intervenor were key factors in denying bail to the petitioner.
The accused's right to a speedy trial and the duty of the prosecution and the court to expedite the trial.
Lack of prosecution and interest by the applicant can lead to dismissal of a bail application.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
