JUDGMENT

1. Through the medium of the instant successive bail petition having been filed in terms of the provisions of Section 439 of the erstwhile repealed Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”, for short), corresponding to Section 483of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (“BNSS”, for short), the bail on behalf of the petitioner/accused in case FIR No. 19/2016 of Police Station Thathri, Doda has been sought on the grounds inter alia that he has been facing trial in the aforementioned case FIR since last about nine years; that the charges in the case FIR concerned were framed against him by the learned trial court on 22.02.2017 and despite considerable lapse of time, the trial in the case has shown no substantial progress; that out of fifty listed prosecution witnesses, only nineteen witnesses have been examined over the past nine years at a cumbrous trial; that the failure on the part of the prosecution to ensure the timely presence and examination of its witnesses has resulted in prolonged incarceration of the petitioner; that mere perusal of the charge sheet reveals that the allegations lack substance and there is no prima facie case made out against the petitioner; that the learned trial court rejected his bail application solely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions which are not sustainable in the eyes of law; that he has been subjected to a prolonged trial without any substantial progress which has violated his right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India; that he along with other co-accused has been falsely implicated in the case FIR concerned which was registered under Sections 302 and 109 of the Ranbir Penal Code; that he was arrested on 29.04.2016 and has been facing continuous incarceration since then; that right to speedy trial has been held to be a silver line of criminal justice system and his indefinite detention is perverse to the criminal jurisprudence; that every passing day behind the four walls of the jail amounts to his pending trial punishment; that over the past three and a half years, between 10.09.2021 and 24.12.2024 covering nearly fifty hearings, the prosecution has been able to examine only five witnesses out of the calendar of fifty witnesses; that even prior to the aforesaid period, the trial against him suffered a sluggish pace on account of COVID-19 pandemic; that the case of the prosecution hinges on circumstantial evidence and no motive could be attributed sustainability to the accused for the alleged commission of the offences charged against him; that the independent civilian witnesses mostly cited by the prosecution happen to be all the close relatives of the deceased residing in different villages and localities from the place of occurrence; that actually the complainants have attempted to implicate his entire family without any substantive evidence against them; that the prosecution witnesses themselves have stated that at the time of occurrence when the fire broke out in his house, they were in the mosque offering Friday prayers; that the co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court in a Criminal Revision Petition; that the deceased died due to the fire that occurred in the house at about 1:00 PM and there is no whisper of any legal evidence to suggest that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature; that a bare perusal of the prosecution case reveals that the investigation is unclear on the issue whether the breaking out of the fire and death of the deceased was accidental or homicidal in nature; that basic flaws in the case of prosecution coupled with the protracted trial makes it a fit case for grant of bail in the interest of justice;

that he earlier filed bail application before the trial court of Additional Sessions Judge, Doda on 29.12.2023 which came to be dismissed by the learned trial court vide its order dated 17.12.2024;that while dismissing the earlier bail