High Court

3. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant by his wife and according to FIR, informant performed second marriage with the applicant after death of her first husband and from the wedlock of her first husband, she was having two children aged about 11 years and 7 years and in the night of 28/29.09.2022, applicant made assault upon her elder son through wooden stick, kick and fist due to which he died.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter and actually deceased accidentally sustained injuries and died but as applicant was his step further, therefore, due to suspicion, his wife lodged FIR of the present case.

5. He further submitted that during trial, in her cross-examination, informant i.e. wife of the applicant categorically stated that deceased accidentally sustained injuries and died.

6. He further submitted that as per prosecution, apart from informant, Pawan and Sunny, another son of informant, were also the eye-witnesses but Pawan has already expired and till date, Sunny has not been produced by the prosecution before the trial

7. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 29.09.2022 i.e. for last almost two and half years and till date out of 15 witnesses of the charge sheet, only 5 could be examined.

8. He further submitted that considering the long incarceration of the applicant, a report was called from the court concerned about the current status of the trial, which is now on record and from its perusal, it reflects, without any fault of the applicant, trial of the case is still pending. He further submitted that report also suggests that due to non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses, trial is being lingered on.

9. He further submitted that from the report of the court concerned, it also reflects that after the statement of P.W.1 i.e. informant of the case, four formal witnesses have been produced by the prosecution, therefore, it appears prosecution is reluctant to produce any other witness of fact including alleged ey-ewitness Sunny, the son of the informant. He further submitted that considering the manner, in which trial is being proceeded, there is no hope of its early disposal.

10. He further submitted that right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, even in serious cases, he can be released on bail. He further submitted that considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost two and half years, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been violated.

11. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history.

12. Per contra, learned AGA, however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counel for the applicant.

13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, as per allegation, applicant badly beaten his step son, due to which, he died and it reflects incident has been witnessed by his wife, who is informant of the case, Pawan and another son of the informant, namely Sunny but record suggests that during trial, informant i.e. wife of the applicant, when appeared before the trial court then in her cross-examination, she stated that accidentally deceased sustained injuries and died.

15. Further, record also suggests that one of the alleged eye- witness Pawan has already expired and till date, another son of informant Sunny has not been examined by the trial court.

16. Record also suggests that considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost two and half years, a report was called from the court concerned about the current status of the trial and from its perusal, it reflects, till date only five prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total 15 witnesses of the charge sheet and from the report, it also reflects, due to non- appearance of the prosecution witnesses, trial of the case is being lingered on, therefore, it reflects, fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has been violated.

17. Further, from the report, it also reflects, after examination of P.W.1 i.e. informant of the case, four formal witnesses were produced by the prosecution and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that prosecution is reluctant to produce alleged eye-witness Sunny, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

18. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 29.09.2022 i.e. for last almost two and half years.

19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

21. Let the applicant- Premvir be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

22. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

23. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 KK Patel

3. FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant by his wife and according to FIR, informant performed second marriage with the applicant after death of her first husband and from the wedlock of her first husband, she was having two children aged about 11 years and 7 years and in the night of 28/29.09.2022, applicant made assault upon her elder son through wooden stick, kick and fist due to which he died.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter and actually deceased accidentally sustained injuries and died but as applicant was his step further, therefore, due to suspicion, his wife lodged FIR of the present case.

5. He further submitted that during trial, in her cross-examination, informant i.e. wife of the applicant categorically stated that deceased accidentally sustained injuries and died.

6. He further submitted that as per prosecution, apart from informant, Pawan and Sunny, another son of informant, were also the eye-witnesses but Pawan has already expired and till date, Sunny has not been produced by the prosecution before the trial

7. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 29.09.2022 i.e. for last almost two and half years and till date out of 15 witnesses of the charge sheet, only 5 could be examined.

8. He further submitted that considering the long incarceration of the applicant, a report was called from the court concerned about the current status of the trial, which is now on record and from its perusal, it reflects, without any fault of the applicant, trial of the case is still pending. He further submitted that report also suggests that due to non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses, trial is being lingered on.

9. He further submitted that from the report of the court concerned, it also reflects that after the statement of P.W.1 i.e. informant of the case, four formal witnesses have been produced by the prosecution, therefore, it appears prosecution is reluctant to produce any other witness of fact including alleged ey-ewitness Sunny, the son of the informant. He further submitted that considering the manner, in which trial is being proceeded, there is no hope of its early disposal.

10. He further submitted that right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its violation, even in serious cases, he can be released on bail. He further submitted that considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost two and half years, it cannot be said that fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not been violated.

11. He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history.

12. Per contra, learned AGA, however, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counel for the applicant.

13. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

14. However, as per allegation, applicant badly beaten his step son, due to which, he died and it reflects incident has been witnessed by his wife, who is informant of the case, Pawan and another son of the informant, namely Sunny but record suggests that during trial, informant i.e. wife of the applicant, when appeared before the trial court then in her cross-examination, she stated that accidentally deceased sustained injuries and died.

15. Further, record also suggests that one of the alleged eye- witness Pawan has already expired and till date, another son of informant Sunny has not been examined by the trial court.

16. Record also suggests that considering the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost two and half years, a report was called from the court concerned about the current status of the trial and from its perusal, it reflects, till date only five prosecution witnesses could be examined out of total 15 witnesses of the charge sheet and from the report, it also reflects, due to non- appearance of the prosecution witnesses, trial of the case is being lingered on, therefore, it reflects, fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has been violated.

17. Further, from the report, it also reflects, after examination of P.W.1 i.e. informant of the case, four formal witnesses were produced by the prosecution and considering this fact, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that prosecution is reluctant to produce alleged eye-witness Sunny, cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.

18. Further, applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 29.09.2022 i.e. for last almost two and half years.

19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

21. Let the applicant- Premvir be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

22. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

23. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 KK Patel