Surender Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in FIR No.101 of 2021, dated 04.04.2021, registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and he has been falsely implicated in the case, as a result whereof, he is languishing in custody for the last more than five years. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner was taken in custody on 04.04.2021 and since then, he has remained in such custody, earlier in police custody and now in judicial custody. Learned Counsel also submitted that the prosecution, in all, has cited 50 witnesses (39 witnesses in the main Challan and 11 witnesses in the Supplementary Challan). Out of these 50 witnesses, 19 stand examined and now for recording the statements of some of the remaining witnesses, dates have been fixed for 15.09.2026 onwards. He thus, submitted that as there is no likelihood of the trial being completed within some reasonable time and further, as the petitioner has already been in custody for more than 5 years, interest of justice demands that he be released on bail. Learned Counsel also submitted that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and besides this FIR, there is no other FIR registered against him. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the event of bail being granted to the petitioner, he shall abide by all the terms and conditions which this Court may be pleased to impose upon him.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General argued that as the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is both grave and henious, therefore, he is not entitled for any bail. He submitted that earlier applications filed by the petitioner also stand rejected on merit. He further submitted that if released on bail, there is a possibility that the petitioner may try to influence, threaten, or win over the remaining witnesses. Therefore, as the allegation against the petitioner is a grave one of killing his wife, the present petition be dismissed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the petition as well as documents appended therewith and the latest Status Report filed by the State.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he caused the death of his wife intentionally by driving the vehicle, in which they were seated, down the hill purposely with the intent of doing away with the life of his wife. The FIR is dated 04.04.2021 and the petitioner is in custody since 04.04.2021.

Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged against him, of course, is a matter of trial. It is also a matter of record that earlier bail petitions filed by the petitioner have been dismissed by this Court as also by the Court of learned Sessions Judge on merit. However, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner as from the date of lodging of the FIR has been in custody for more than 5 years.

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sahil Manoj Machare Versus The State of Maharashtra, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.7502 of 2026, decided on 17.03.2026, was pleased to order the release of the petitioner therein, who was also arrested for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was in judicial custody since 01.11.2022, by holding that the right of accused to a speedy trial is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it was mindful of the fact that the petitioner was charged with the offence of murder, but it thereafter observed time and again that howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right to speedy trial is infringed, then the Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant the bail in that case in which the petitioner was in custody for four years, on the ground that not a single witness had been examined till the date of grant of bail.

Similarly, in Chintan Vidyasagar Upadhyay Versus The State of Maharashtra, Special Leave to appeal (Cri.) No(s). 2543 of 2021, decided on 21.12.2020, wherein also, the petitioner was facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 396, 201, 109 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to grant bail in favour of the petitioner therein, who was in custody for nearly 6 years by observing that the trial was in progress and as out of 28 witnesses to be examined, 12 witnesses were yet to be examined, therefore, the petitioner was entitled for bail having been incarcerated for nearly 6 years.

In Vaibhav Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No.7416 of 2026, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the petitioner therein, who was an under trial prisoner for almost 9 years, held as under:-

"7. It's been almost nine years that the petitioner is in judicial custody as an under-trial prisoner.

What is most disappointing is what has been observed by the High Court in Para 8.

Para 8 reads thus:

"The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2024 INSC 909 has held that once the trial has commenced, it should be allowed to reach to its ftnal conclusion, which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the accused. The bail should not be normally granted to the accused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the deposition."

It appears that the High Court has not been able to understand the true purport and ratio of the decision of this Court, referred to, in para 8. All that the High Court ought to have considered is the fact that the petitioner is languishing in jail as an under-trial prisoner past nine years. What more was required for the High Court to consider the plea of the petitioner for bail, keeping his right of speedy trial in mind as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

We believe we should not wait even for the State to appear. This is a gross case wherein the fundamental right of the petitioner to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution could be said to have been infringed.

12 In many of our Judgments and on many occasions, we have said in so many words that howsoever grave the crime may be, but if the accused is denied his right of speedy trial and is languishing in jail for years together and for no fault on his part, he cannot be kept in jail for indeftnite period."

In light of the said pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that as the petitioner herein has been incarcerated for more than 5 years now, out of the total 50 witnesses, only 19 witnesses stand examined till date and as there is no possibility of the trial being concluded within some reasonable time, it would not be in the interest of justice to detain the petitioner any further in custody.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed by ordering the release of the petitioner on bail in FIR No.101 of 2021, dated 04.04.2021, registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, on his furnishing of personal bond to the tune of Rs.2,00,000-(Rupees Two Lac only) with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, within a period of one week from today, subject to the following conditions:-

i.) Petitioner shall attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by ftling appropriate application;

ii.) He shall not temper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

iii) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

iv) He shall not leave the territory of the State of Himachal Pradesh without prior permission of the learned trial Court.

It is clarified that findings, which have been returned by this Court while deciding this petition, are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail petition and learned Trial Court shall not be influenced, in any manner whatsoever, by any of the findings so returned by this Court in the adjudication of this petition during the course of the trial. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.