Duni Chand vs State Of H.P

Satyen Vaidya, J

The petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 82 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015 under Sections 364, 302, 376, 201 of IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P.

The petitioner was arrested on 10.12.2015 and since then, he is in custody.

Petitioner has been charged with offence under Sections, 364, 302, 376, 201 of IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he murdered his sister-in-law (wife’s sister) after committing rape upon her. It is further alleged against the petitioner that after commission of murder, he disposed the body underneath a rock in the “Jungle”.

The prayer for granting bail to the petitioner has been pressed mainly on the ground that petitioner is in custody for the last seven years and the trial has not concluded. The right of speedy trial available to the petitioner has been infringed. In addition, it has also been submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and there is no legal evidence worth the name to implicate him.

On the other hand, the prayer for bail has been opposed on the ground that petitioner is accused of very heinous crime. The trial is at fag end and in case of grant of bail to the petitioner, he may abscond from the course of justice. It has also been submitted that only formal witnesses remain to be examined.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is entitled for bail as his further detention will amount to unreasonable restriction on his right to liberty. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5191 of 2021, titled as Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another, decided on 11.7.2022 It is also contended that the prosecution witnesses examined so far have not supported the prosecution case.

During the course of hearing, the Court was informed that the delay in trial has been caused on account of repeated submissions of supplementary challan. Delay has also been attributed to intervening period, when the judicial works suffered due to Covit-19 Pandemic. The Court has further been informed that the entire list of prosecution witnesses has been exhausted except three cited witnesses, out of whom, one is stated to have died and remaining two are only formal witnesses.

This Court while deciding the bail application will not go into the question of merits of the prosecution evidence for the reason that any observation at this stage may prejudice the case of either of the parties.

No doubt, the trial of the case has been delayed. The reasons mentioned for delay of trial have not been controverted on behalf of the petitioner. There is nothing to suggest that trial has been intentionally delayed.

The contention of respondent that the trial is at fag end and the grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage may prove to be prejudicial to its conclusion appears to be with substance. Petitioner is aware about the stage of the trial. He has also waited for a long period of seven years to file bail application that too when only two formal witnesses remained to be examined. The apprehension expressed by respondent cannot be said to be unreasonable.

The concern of this Court at this stage to secure fair and early disposal of trial. The trial is at fag end and learned trial Court can be requested to dispose of the trial expeditiously and on priority basis, keeping in view the longevity of the same.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. It is expected that the learned trial Court will dispose of the trial as expeditiously as possible on priority basis. A copy of this order be immediately sent to learned trial Court for compliance.