The Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed a petition, seeking bail in a case registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Court observed that the right to speedy trial is a constitutional right of an accused. A person cannot be kept behind bars when there is no prospect of trial being concluded expeditiously.
Brief Facts:
It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 2019. It was asserted by the police that a dead body was found by the informant. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. The police presented the challan against the accused. The prosecution has examined 08 witnesses, 04 witnesses have given up and 24 witnesses are yet to be examined. The matter is listed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan for the examination of the remaining prosecution witnesses.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the witnesses are not being produced despite repeated adjournments. Four years have elapsed and only 08 witnesses have been examined. 24 witnesses are yet to be examined. The petitioner cannot be kept behind bars indefinitely awaiting the examination of remaining prosecution witnesses.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the witnesses could not be examined on some days due to the restricted Court functioning caused by the COVID-19 Epidemic. The Presiding Officer was absent on some occasions, which led to the delay. The prosecution will examine all the witnesses expeditiously and the prosecution has no interest in prolonging the trial.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the Court had summoned only the first two witnesses instead of summoning all the witnesses and had repeatedly adjourned the matter for examination of these two witnesses. The witnesses were not produced. The summons were not returned. This supports the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner that the prosecution is not interested in completing the trial.
The Court observed that the right to speedy trial is a constitutional right of an accused. A person cannot be kept behind bars when there is no prospect of trial being concluded expeditiously. The Court said 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 as the case may be. In the present case, this duty is not being discharged by the prosecution. 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 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.
Case Title: Amar Pal @Bhawarpal @ Gulayia v State of Himachal Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Case no.: Cr. MP (M) No. 2867 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Raman Jamalta
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Jitender Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
