IMPORTANT POINT
The entitlement of an under-trial prisoner to not be detained in jail custody for an indefinite period, as it violates Article 21 of the Constitution, and the importance of speedy trial.

JUDGMENT

1. Matter taken up via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Satyendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner who has submitted that this is an application for grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner who was arrested in connection with Mawlai PS Case No. 38(5)2018 u/s 364/302/201 IPC.

3. The cause for the arrest of the petitioner is on the basis of an FIR dated 29.05.2018 lodged by one Shri Seiyaton Soro, who has reported that his sister was found missing from home since 26.05.2018 and could not be traced. The FIR lodged before the Officer In-Charge Laitumkhrah PS, Shillong was forwarded to the Officer In-Charge Mawlai PS for necessary action, since by then, the dead body of the said sister of the informant was recovered from Mawiong View Point, GS Road.

4. In course of investigation, the accused was arrested one 13.05.2018 as a suspect along with one Shri Santosh Kumar Shah. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer (I/O) filed the charge sheet before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillong indicating an established prima facie case against the petitioner herein and which case was registered as GR Case No. 40(A)of 2018 u/s 302/201/34 IPC. In due course, the case was committed before the Sessions Court and re-registered as Sessions Case No. 8(T)2018 and the same is pending trial before the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Shillong.

5. It is further submitted that, at present the trial is at the evidence stage and out of 41 prosecution witnesses, only 5(five) witnesses have been examined. The trial has proceeded at a very slow pace since most of the witnesses are from out of station and some FSL reports and material exhibits are also not available when called for and as such, it appears that the trial may take a long time to be completed.

6. It is also again submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any crime as alleged. Also considering the fact that the petitioner is not in good health, for which he had been admitted at the Civil Hospital, Shillong from time to time, therefore, a strong case for grant of bail is made out. If enlarged on bail, the petitioner is willing to abide by any condition imposed by this Court.

7. The case of 'State of Kerela v. Raneef' (2011) 1 SCC 118 para 15 and the case of 'Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation' (2012) 1 SCC 40 para 42 and 43 have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to content that the petitioner cannot be detained in jail custody for an indefinite period if it appears that the trial will take considerable time for which the provision of Article 21 of the Constitution, would be applied as the right to life is also a fundamental right of a citizen of this country.

8. It is therefore prayed that this application may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail on any conditions deemed fit and proper to be imposed by this Court.

9. Also heard Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG along with Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang learned GA who has submitted that the offence involved is very severe and serious in nature inasmuch as, the petitioner is accused of not only committing a brutal murder but also of kidnapping and destruction of evidence.

10. It is also submitted that the petitioner has failed to mentioned that previously he had preferred 9(nine) bail applications which were rejected and such, there are no fresh circumstances which would allow the petitioner to approach this Court with another fresh bail application and as such, this application may be rejected as devoid of merits.

11. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the facts as presented need not be reiterated except to acknowledge that the petitioner is accused of a very grave offence involving murder. From the submission of the parties, it is also understood that the trial has proceeded to the point of examination of witnesses. However, it is noted that from the year 2018 till date only 5 out of 41 witnesses have bee