Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Bail petitioner namely Dolam Chand, who is behind bars for more than six and a half years, has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.53/2018 dated 10.04.2018, registered at Police Station Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Respondent/State has filed status-report and SI Surjeet Singh, P.S. Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, has come present along with record. Record perused and returned.

3. Close scrutiny of record/status report reveals that on

10.04.2018, complainant-Ajay Kumar got his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., alleging therein that he along Dola Ram had come to Pragpur. He alleged that near Nakki Khadd, boy namely Mehra met them and thereafter, Dola Ram and Mehra brought Desi liquor. Complainant alleged that person namely Prem Nath also met them on the spot and thereafter, Dola Ram, Mehra and Prem Nath consumed liquor and he was standing on the side of the tree. He alleged that while consuming liquor, some altercation took place inter se Dola Ram and Prem Nath. He alleged that since Dola Ram had taken his phone for making call, he came on the spot and found that Dola Ram was hitting Prem Nath with the stones and boy namely Mehra was holding the hands of Prem Nath. He alleged that both Mehra and Dola Ram fled towards Nakki Khadd and he informed his mother about the incident, through the mobile phone of some boy. In the aforesaid background, FIR, as detailed hereinabove, came to be lodged against accused namely Mehra and Dola Ram and since then, they are behind bars.

4. Since investigation in the case at hand is complete, petitioner, who is behind bars for more than six and a half years, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial.

5. Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that FIR was lodged in the year 2018, but till date, prosecution has been not able to examine all the prosecution witnesses, as a result thereof, petitioner is behind bars for more than six and a half years, that too, without his being held guilty by the competent Court of law. Mr. Sharma submits that till date, 24 witnesses have been examined out of

34. While referring to the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided on 03.07.2024, Mr. Sharma states that speedy trial has been held to be the right of the petitioner and infringement of the same has been held to be violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that prosecution agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that serious crime has been committed, especially when delay in conclusion of the trial is not at the behest of accused, rather is on account of the prosecution. Apart from above, Mr. Sharma while making this Court peruse evidence adduced on record, attempted to argue that petitioner has been falsely implicated, because there is no concrete evidence, adduced on record, suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner had killed Prem Nath.

6. While fairly admitting factum with regard to filing of Challan in the competent Court of law, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that since 24 prosecution witnesses already stands examined and for recording the statement of remaining witnesses, learned trial Court has already fixed the matter for 30th July, 2024, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for grant of bail on the ground of inordinate delay in the conclusion of trial may not be accepted. While making this Court peruse record, Mr. Verma submits that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record, suggestive of the fact that bail petitioner gave merciless beatings to the deceased-Prem Nath and deceased died on account of inju

Click Here to Read the rest of this document