The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed a petition, filed for granting regular bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 324, and 504 of IPC.
The Court observed that the right to speedy trial cannot be violated by allowing the prosecution to prolong the trial and keep the accused in custody. The constitutional right of freedom has to be weighed with the protection of the society and a balance has to be struck by the Court.
Brief Facts:
FIR dated 15.10.2018 was registered at Police Station for the commission of offenses punishable under Sections 302, 324, and 504 of IPC. The police filed a status report asserting that an FIR was registered against the petitioner for murdering Pawan alias Panki. The police conducted the investigation, recovered the articles, recorded the statements of the witnesses, and arrested the petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The trial is being delayed and the prosecution has not completed the evidence despite the lapse of five years. The informant has died and there is no evidence against the petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in judicial custody will not serve any fruitful purpose; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the report of analysis clearly shows that the blood found on the clothes of the petitioner matched the blood of the deceased. There is sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. The evidence is being recorded and there is no delay in examining the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
The Court noted that the investigating Officer must remain present during the trial and keep the witnesses present. If there is a violation on the part of the witnesses to remain present, the Court has to take proper action including the issuance of bailable/non-bailable warrants.
The Court observed that in the present case, this duty is not being discharged by the prosecution. The Court said that the right to speedy trial cannot be violated by allowing the prosecution to prolong the trial and keep the accused in custody. The constitutional right of freedom has to be weighed with the protection of the society and a balance has to be struck by the Court. If the Investigating Agency fails to discharge its duty of concluding the trial expeditiously, the accused gets a right to be released on bail.
The Court remarked that the report of the learned Presiding Officer clearly shows that the trial against the petitioner is not likely to conclude soon, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner indefinitely hoping for the early conclusion of the trial.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, allowing the petition, held that the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety to the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Case Title: Amit Kumar v State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Case no.: Cr. MPM No.1728 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Sharma
Advocate for the Respondents: Ms. Avni Kochhar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
