Prolonged custody, significant delays in trial proceedings, and serious evidential lapses necessitate bail, even in cases of serious offences, highlighting the need for diligence in investigations.

ORDER :

1. They are heard. Perused the case diary/challan papers.

2. This is the applicant's sixth bail application filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/ Section 439 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973, as he/she is implicated in connection with Crime No.270/2020 registered at Police Station Industrial Area, District Ratlam (MP) for offence punishable under Sections 302 , 34, 450, 397, 398, 114, 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 25 and 27 of the ARMS ACT , 1959. The applicant is in custody since 02.12.2020.

3. Out of his earlier five applications, three applications have been dismissed as withdrawn and two applications have been allowed temporarily on account of the applicant suffering from Hepatitis-B.

4. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is lodged in jail since last more than 3 years and 8 months, and the final conclusion of trial is likely to take sufficient long time, as even as per the status report, only 11 witnesses have been examined until now and 18 more witnesses are still to be examined, who are not turning up in the trial Court.

5. It is also submitted that the date of incident is 18.06.2020 whereas, the applicant has been arrested on 02.12.2020 and initially, only a mobile phone, which also belonged to him, was seized, however, after three days, his pant has also been seized, which according to the prosecution, was worn by the applicant at the time of the incident and the DNA report of the same is also positive.

6. Counsel has submitted that the DNA report is falsely made up as it is not possible that the applicant would keep his pant for six months in his house and in the same condition, to be recovered by the prosecution. Thus, it is submitted that the application may be allowed, and the applicant be released on bail.

7. Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for grant of bail is made out.

8. Having considered the rival submissions, on perusal of the case diary and taking into account the fact that the applicant is lodged in jail since 02.12.2020, and the DNA report is in respect of his pant which has been seized from the applicant after six months of the date of incident, and the fact that no other material has been seized from him relating to the robbery, this Court is inclined to allow the present application looking to the fact that only 11 witnesses have been examined and 18 more witnesses are still to be examined.

9. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his/her regular appearance before the trial Court during trial with a condition that he / she shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973.

10. S.I. Raisingh Rawat, Police Station Namli, District Ratlam is also present in the Court, pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, as this Court had enquired from the counsel for the State as to why the chance fingerprints were not obtained from the spot, as it is alleged that the the appellant was also present when the robbery took place, wherein, a woman was murdered brutally. Thus, on a query made to Shri Rawat, S.I., he has submi