1. Petitioner is an accused in case registered vide FIR No.14 of 2021 dated 04.02.2021 at Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P. under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC. Petitioner is in custody since 05.02.2021.
2. As per the case of respondent, on 04.02.2021, a telephonic information was received at Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur, that an un-identified dead body was lying between places “Delag and Dali”. On such information, a police party reached the spot. Subsequently, the SHO, Police Station, Barmana also reached the spot and conducted preliminary investigation. Statement of Arvind Kumar Sharma was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., who had seen the dead body lying on the spot along with other local residents. On further investigation, one ‘Aadhar Card’ bearing name of Mohammad Aadil was found in the vicinity where the dead body was lying. The details mentioned in the said ‘Aadhar Card’ were tracked, which revealed that the person named in the ‘Aadhar Card’ belonged to a place “Mohalla Islam Nagar, Kasba Patiyapada, Thana Chandpur, District Bijnor, U.P.”. It also transpired during investigation that a missing report with respect to a person named Ram Raj was recorded at Police Station, Nayi Mandi, Muzaffarnagar on 01.02.2021 and in the course of inquiry on such report, a person with a female had been tracked on the basis of CDRs. It was further informed by the officials of Police Station, Nayi Mandi, Muzaffarnagar that the person and female rounded off by them along with a few other persons, were being brought to Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur for identifying the dead body found on 04.02.2021 within the jurisdiction of said Police Station. The person along with female brought by the police from Police Station, New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar were identified as Mohammad Aadil (petitioner) and Farrah @ Tamanna (the other co-accused in the case). They were accompanied by the other persons, one of whom, was the brother of Ram Raj. All of these persons identified the dead body, found between “Delag and Dali” on 04.02.2021, to be that of Ram Raj. On further investigation, it was found that the petitioner and Farrah @ Tamanna in furtherance of their common intention had caused death of Ram Raj by causing injuries on his person with an iron hammer at place near Namol Barot, P.O. Baroti, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi. The body of Ram Raj was then carried in a vehicle (Alto Car) No. HP-21A-5999 up to the place between “Delag and Dali”, where the same was ultimately found on 4.2.2021.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 2 years and five months. The charges were framed by the learned trial Court on 28.03.2022 and thereafter only one prosecution witness has been examined out of a long list of 50 prosecution witnesses. Statement of second prosecution witness was partly recorded on 14.11.2022 and thereafter the same has not been completed till date. As per the petitioner, his right to speedy trial has seriously been prejudiced and in these circumstances, he is entitled to bail.
4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the prayer for grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner is accused of a very heinous crime. Material witnesses of the case are yet to be examined. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.01.2022 passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 2346 of 2021. Petitioner is not entitled to maintain the successive bail application without changed circumstances.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.
6. It is not in dispute that the prosecution has cited 50 witnesses in support of its case and only one out of 50 cited witnesses has been examined till date. Learned trial Court had framed the charges against the petitioner and his co-accused on 28.03.2022. Thereafter only one witness has been examined. In these circumstances, the right of petitioner to have speedy trial has definitely been prejudiced. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court on 18th January, 2022, when even the charges were not framed. Thus, the present petition, though successive, can be heard in changed circumstances.
7. The right to speedy trial is one of the various manifestations of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and has repeatedly been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be a valuable right available to a person or accused of an offence. In Dr. Vinod Bhandari vs. State of M.P. 2015(1) Criminal Court Cases 294 (S.C.), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“12. It is well settled that at pre-conviction stage, there is presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of the allegation or the availability of material in support thereof are not the only considerations for declining bail. Delay in commencement and conclusion of trial is a factor to be taken into account and the accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period if trial is not likely to be concluded within reasonable time. Reference may be made to decisions of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, (2005)2 SCC 42 [LQ/SC/1980/272] , State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, [LQ/SC/2005/961] State of Kerala vs. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784 [LQ/SC/2011/2] and Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, (2012)1 SCC 40 [LQ/SC/2021/3157 ;] .”
8. In Zahur Haider Zaidi vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019)20 SCC 404, a three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court had granted bail to an accused of offence under Section 302 of the IPC in following terms :-
“1. Leave granted. We would presently consider whether the accused- appellant Zahur Haider Zaidi is entitled to be released on bail. The issue of transfer of case would be considered on a subsequent date after hearing all the accused.
2. Our attention has been drawn to the allegations against the accused-appellant and that he is in custody for the last 19 months. Though the accused-appellant is facing charge under Section 302, we are told that the trial has not made substantial progress beyond the framing of the charge. Completion of trial will take some time.
3. The only apprehension expressed on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation is that the appellant being a highly placed police officer may intimidate and win over witnesses and influence them.
4. We are of the view that the bail ought not to be denied on the aforesaid ground and in the event of any such conduct, the prosecution can always approach the competent court for cancellation of bail.
5. Taking into account the allegations, the period of custody suffered and likely time that may be taken for completion of trial, we are of the view that the accused- appellant should be released on bail in connection with FIR No.RC SI 2017 S0009 CBI/SC-I/New Delhi, on satisfaction of the appropriate condition(s) as may be imposed by the learned trial court. The order of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is disposed of to the aforesaid extent.”
9. In Criminal Appeal Nos. 152 of 2020, Prabhakar Tewari v. State of UP and Anr. (along with connected matter) and Criminal Appeal No.98 of 2021, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized the value of speedy trial for the accused and in cases of delay in completion of trials, liberty of bail has been granted.
10. In Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2023 titled as Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its judgment dated 28.03.2023, has held as under: -
“21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry’s response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had recorded that as on 31 st December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the country20. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were under-trials.
22. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at risk of “prisonisation” a term described by the Kerala High Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State21 as“a radical transformation” whereby the prisoner:
“loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses personal possessions. He has no personal relationships. Psychological problems result from loss of freedom, status, possessions, dignity any autonomy of personal life. The inmate culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Self-perception changes.”
23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, “as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal”22 (also see Donald Clemmer’s ‘The Prison Community’ 20 National Crime Records Bureau, Prison Statistics in India https://ncrb.gov.in/sites/default/files/ PSI- 2021/Executive_ncrb_Summary-2021.pdf 21 1993 Cri LJ 3242 22 Working Papers - Group on Prisons & Borstals - 1966 U.K. published in 194023). Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.”
11. In the facts of instant case, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner has been accessory in delaying the trial of the case. Petitioner is of young age. He is stated to be 22 years old. Petitioner has no other criminal antecedents or part criminal history.
12. It is reflected from the records that the trial of the case proceeding at snail’s pace. Despite the fact that the charges were framed on 28.03.2022, only one prosecution witness has been examined even after lapse of one year and three months thereafter. In these circumstances, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in reasonable period.
13. Petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than 2 years and 5 months. Pre-trial incarceration cannot be punitive or preventive.
14. In the given circumstances of the case, the further pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner will not be justified. The only concern of the court is with respect to availability of the petitioner for the trial and its fair conclusion and for such purposes, petitioner is being put to stringent conditions as detailed hereafter.
15. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case registered vide FIR No.14 of 2021 dated 04.02.2021 at Police Station, Barmana, District Bilaspur, H.P. under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC, on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount, both of whom should be bonafide residents of State of Himachal Pradesh and having sufficient immovable properties within the jurisdiction of the State, to the satisfaction of learned trial court. This order shall, however, be subject to the following conditions: -
"i) Petitioner shall regularly attend the trial of the case before learned Trial Court and shall not cause any delay in its conclusion.
ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner, whatsoever and shall not dissuade any person from speaking the truth in relation to the facts of the case in hand.
iii) Petitioner shall be liable for immediate arrest in the instant case in the event of petitioner violating the conditions of this bail.
(iv) Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of learned trial Court till completion of trial."
16. Any expression of opinion herein-above shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and shall be deemed only for the purpose of disposal of this petition.
