IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 1019 of 2011 Date of decision: 15.12.2011 Yash Pal son of Shri Bharat Ram, resident of Village Bajdol, Post Office Saproon, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. at presently in judicial lockup at Solan. …. Petitioner Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh ….. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner : Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 63 of 2010 dated 30.3.2010 registered at Police Station, Sadar Solan, under Sections 307, 324, 326 IPC. 2. It has been stated in the application that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in FIR No. 63/2010 dated 30.3.2010 registered at Police Station, Sadar Solan. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. The allegations against the petitioner are that he has caused stab injuries to his brother and his friend. The occurrence Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes 2 allegedly took place in the house of the petitioner. The two complainants in drunkard condition attacked the petitioner in his house. 3. The petitioner is in judicial lockup since more than one year and nine months. The petitioner has lost his wife and two minor children who are studying in the school. The family of the petitioner has been adversely affected due to detention of the petitioner. There is no one to look after the children. 4. The prosecution has failed to examine the witnesses till date and now the case has been fixed for prosecution evidence on 2.1.2012. The petitioner is suffering due to prolongation of trial of the petitioner. The petitioner has fundamental right of speedy trial. 5. The petitioner had earlier filed two bail applications which were dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solan but both the bail applications were dismissed on grounds not available in law. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The further detention of the petitioner in judicial custody is not necessary. A prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail. 6. The status report has been filed. It has been stated that on 30.3.2010 at 8.05 p.m. Smt.Rippa Devi telephonically informed Police Post, Saproon that her husband Sanjeev Kumar and Gopal Singh had been attacked by Yash Pal with knife and both of them were seriously injured. On this, police reached the spot but it was found that injured had been taken to Solan for medical aid. HC Santokh Singh went to R.H. Solan and obtained MLCs of Sanjeev Kumar and Gopal Singh. Sanjeev Kumar had suffered five injuries and Gopal Singh seven injuries. Both 3 the injured were referred to IGMC, Shimla and injured were not in a position to make statement, an attempt was made to kill both the injured. On facts available the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was made out. On the basis of rukka the case was registered. 7. The petitioner was arrested on 31.3.2010. Sections 326, 324 IPC were added. On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court on 25.6.2010. The case is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan. The case is fixed for PWs on 2.1.2012. It has been stated that in case the petitioner is released on bail, then petitioner is likely to terrorise the prosecution witnesses. The submission has been made for dismissal of the bail application. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have also perused the police file. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that charge in the case was framed on 6.8.2010 and till now no prosecution witness has been examined in the case. Now, the case is fixed for PWs on 2.1.2012. The detention of the petitioner is being prolonged for no fault of the petitioner. The petitioner has already lost his wife, nobody is there to look after his two minor children. He has stated that alleged occurrence took place in the house of the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to speedy trial which is not proceeding even after framing of the charge. The fundamental right of the petitioner for speedy trial has been violated. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied State of Kerala vs. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784 on the point 4 that while deciding bail applications, the delay in concluding the trial is a relevant factor. 9. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that from 13.6.2011 to 21.11.2011 there was no Presiding Officer in the Court and, therefore, delay in the trial cannot be attributed to the prosecution. It has been submitted that the petitioner is involved in a serious case where he attacked his brother and another person. The two bail applications of the petitioner have already been dismissed, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. 10. The charge has been framed on 6.8.2010 as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But fact remains that till today no PW has been examined in the case. The learned Additional Advocate General has stated that for certain period there was no Presiding Officer in the Court but the benefit of the absence of the Presiding Officer in the Court cannot be wholly given to the prosecution. The charge was framed long time back in August, 2010. There is no explanation why the evidence of the prosecution was not recorded from August, 2010 to June, 2011 when the Presiding Officer was very much available in the Court. It has been stated that there are in all 30 prosecution witnesses in the case which is now fixed for PWs on 2.1.2012. Nobody knows when the trial will complete. The occurrence allegedly took place according to the petitioner in his house. The petitioner has already lost his wife, there are two minor children. In State of Kerala vs. Raneef (supra), the Supreme Court has held in deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several 5 years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 63 of 2010 dated 30.3.2010 registered at Police Station, Sadar Solan, under Sections 307, 324, 326 IPC on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the condition that the petitioner shall not terrorise the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. He shall maintain absolutely lawful conduct and shall cooperate in the early conclusion of the trial. 12. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti. December 15, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge.