232 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.07.2025 Anand …Petitioner vs.

State of Haryana …Respondent Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat Present: Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate with Mr. Davneet Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, DAG, Haryana.

***

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant regular bail to him in case FIR No.811 dated 19.10.2021 registered under Section 302 of IPC, at Police Station Quilla Panipat, District Panipat.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely involved by the police with some ulterior motive. It has been alleged that the petitioner had caused injuries to Sunil Kumar with a brick. However, during the course of trial, Rahul, the main eye-witness has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. The petitioner was arrested in the present case on 19.10.2021 and is in custody for the last more than 03 years and 09 months. Since, all the material witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, the petitioner may not be in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that serious allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of bail by this Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Ranjan Dwivedi Vs. CBI, through the Director General, 2012(8) SCC

495; 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 880” as follows:-

“14. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (supra), another Constitution Bench considered the right to speedy trial and opined that the delay is dependent on the circumstances of each case, because reasons for delay will vary. This Court held : "84. The right to a speedy trial is a derivation from a provision of Magna Carta. This principle has also been incorporated into the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 and from there into the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of United States of America which reads, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...". It may be pointed out, in this connection, that there is a Federal Act of 1974 called 'Speedy Trial Act' establishing a set of time-limits for carrying out the major events, e.g., information, indictment, arraignment, in the prosecution of criminal cases. [See Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn. page 1400].

85. The right to a speedy trial is not only an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration, to minimise anxiety and concern accompanying the accusation and to limit the possibility of impairing the ability of an accused to defend himself but also there is a societal interest in providing a speedy trial. This right has been actuated in the recent past and the courts have laid down a series of decisions opening up new vistas of fundamental rights. In fact, lot of cases are coming before the courts for quashing of proceedings on the ground of inordinate and undue delay stating that the invocation of this right even need not await formal indictment or charge. 86. The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result from impermissible and avoidable delay from the time of the commission of the offence till it consummates into a finality, can be averted. In this context, it may be noted that the constitutiona