AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).
The instant one is the third petition as filed by the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No.178, dated 08.07.2023, registered under Sections 302, 148, 149 IPC, at Police Station Model Town, District Hoshiarpur. His first petition bearing No.CRM-M-2054-2025 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.01.2025 and second petition bearing No.CRM-M-40226-2025 was dismissed by passing a detailed order vide order dated 20.11.2025.
It is argued by a learned counsel for the petitioner that he has suffered incarceration of about 02 years and 10 months. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are still bleak as no prosecution witness has been examined so far. His prolonged incarceration militates against his fundamental as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Each day spent by him in custody has furnished a fresh ground in his favour to seek concession of bail. The injury attributed to him was not the fatal injury. The co-accused, Hani @ Honey @ Bunny @ Sunny @ Aniket @ Aniket Kumar has been extended benefit of the bail. Principle of parity weighs in his favour. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be extended benefit of bail.
Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petition being a successive petition is not maintainable. The allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and the gravity thereof is a sufficient ground to not to extend benefit of bail to the petitioner. It is, thus, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
So far as the question of maintainability of the petition is concerned, it may be mentioned that an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, and it is the duty of the Court, while entertaining such a subsequent bail application, to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail petition was rejected. The fresh grounds which persuade the Court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier application are also required to be recorded. Reference in this regard can be made to Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 11 SCC 458, wherein it was so observed.
The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and had caused homicidal death of the victim in prosecution of common object thereof. The allegations make out a prima facie case as against the petitioner. However, he has spent a period of about 2 years and 10 months in custody. The chances of conclusion of trial in near future are bleak as no prosecution witnesses has been examined so far. Similarly situated co-accused has been extended benefit of bail.
It is well settled proposition of law that deprivation of the personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not in consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution of India. Even in cases of serious offences, where some amount of deprivation of personal liberty cannot be avoided, if such period becomes unduly long, the same is against the fairness assured by Article 21 of the Constitution. In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra and another, Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024, decided on 03.07.2024, it had been observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court that, howsoever, serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. Bail is not to be withheld as punishment. It was also observed that if the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed, is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had further observed that the over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty, cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be and direction was given for release of appellant on bail.
Reliance can also be placed upon the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 to the effect that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether the bail should be granted or refused or whether it is probable that the party will appear to take its trial and it is indisputable that the bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
The question of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of Hon’ble Supreme Court in another case cited as Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein while considering the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, it was observed that the provisions contained in Section 436-A of Criminal Procedure Code which requires inter alia, the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods, would apply to Special Acts also in the absence of specific provisions.
In view of the discussion as made above with regard to the position of law and applying the same to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail since his incarceration has been prolonged and there are no chances of conclusion of trial in near future. As such, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds as well as surety bonds by two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned and on the following conditions:-
The petitioner shall appear before the SHO of concerned Police Station on the first Monday of every alternative month during the trial of the case and shall mark his presence there and in violation of the same, the concerned SHO shall inform the trial Court who shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner in that eventuality.
He shall not directly or indirectly 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 to any Police Officer.
He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless his presence is exempted by the learned trial Court.
He shall provide details of his permanent address as well as present address before the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and shall not change the same without informing the trial Court.
He shall also give copy of his Aadhar Card, PAN Card (if any) and details of his mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court at the time of furnishing of bonds and in case, any change in his mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about the same to the learned trial Court in advance and shall keep his mobile phone switch on all times.
In the eventuality of breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the respondent-State shall also be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of the bail.
It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.