ORAL JUDGMENT :

ADMIT. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties.

2. By preferring this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned District Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia in Sessions Trial No.48/2013 in connection with Crime No.88/2012 registered at police station Ramnagar, Gondia, District Gondia for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 147, 148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Since, 09.09.2020 the appellant is behind bar.

3. As per report lodged against the appellant by respondent No.2 - Vishal Murlidhar Gajbhiye with the police station, the complainant was acquainted with one Dharam Dawane as well as Rajendra Dawane. On 9.10.2012, at about 11:00 pm, he had been to petrol pump at Jaistambha Chowk for filling petrol in his motorcycle and was passing from over bridge towards his house. At the relevant time, he saw Dharam Dawane aged about 30 years underneath the bridge of Shakti Square communicating somebody, and therefore, he stopped there and was making enquiry with him. At the relevant time, one white colour Tata Sumo sumo came from Gondia side and gave a dash to him as well as Dharam Dawane. The car driver stopped the vehicle and from the said vehicle the appellant along with other co-accused got down. The appellant fired two rounds from his country made pistol and the other co-accused, who were along with him, assaulted Dharam Dawane by iron rods, sticks, and swords and lifted him and put him in the car. At the same time, the complainant was also assaulted by sticks and iron rods, due to which he sustained injuries on his person. Subsequently, he came to know that due to the previous dispute on account of money, Dharam Dawane was taken by the appellant and the co-accused and committed his murder and also caused injuries to the complainant. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present appellant as well as the other co-accused.

4. After registration of the crime, the appellant approached to the Sessions Court for grant of bail but the same was rejected, and therefore, he approached to this Court for grant of bail by filing Criminal Bail Application No.598/2015 which was allowed. As the appellant had jumped from the bail conditions the complainant filed an application bearing Criminal Application (APPLN) No.27/2016 for cancellation of bail. By order of this Court on 01/07/2017 the bail granted to the present appellant was cancelled and thereafter the appellant was arrested on 09/09/2020. After his re-arrest, he again filed Criminal Appeal No.500/2023 which was also rejected by this Court. Now, this application is filed by the appellant on the ground of delay in trial.

5. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant who submitted that initially the appellant was arrested on 04/02/2012 thereafter he was granted bail and released on bail on 30/09/2015 but as he jumped from the bail conditions his bail was cancelled on 01/07/2017 and he was rearrested on 09/09/2020. He submitted that since 09/09/2020 there is no progress in the trial, not a single witness is examined. The prosecution is intending to examine 54 witnesses and the sufficient period is required to examine the said witnesses and the appellant cannot be kept behind bar for an indefinite period. He submitted that now the issue is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the catena of decisions that the right of the accused of a speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and if it violates then irrespective of the nature of the crime, the appellant/accused to be released on bail. Thus, he submitted that as there is no progress in the trial and the appellant cannot be kept behind bar for an indefinite period and he