2023 (3) TMI 1537 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of regular bail - several injuries, dangerous to life or not - offence under Section 307 of IPC, 1860 or not - HELD THAT - The petitioner is on bail in 5 cases and sentence stands suspended in the case where he has been convicted in FIR No. 302 dated 23.11.2016 under Sections 307, 452, 323, 324, 325, 427, 148, 149, 506, 369 of IPC, registered at Police Station Jodhewal, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that after a lapse of more than two years, trial is proceeding at a snail pace at the hands of prosecution. A Division Bench of this High Court in RAJENDER SINGH VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA 2022 (1) TMI 1471 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT has held that a right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal which is also in public interest. This Court would go little further to consider that there is a difference between grant of bail under Section 439 and 438 of Cr.P.C., as compared to suspension of sentence under Section 389 of Cr.P.C.. In the case of suspension of sentence, the conviction order is already there whereas while considering the petition either under Section 438 or 439 Cr.P.C., there may be presumption of innocence which in fact is a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence - This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner in the instant case is a prior convict and involved in other FIRs as has been pointed out by learned State counsel. No doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would lend the petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail - If such proposition is accepted and applied at least in this case wherein the petitioner has already faced 2 years, 3 months and 15 days of incarceration, keeping the petitioner inside is clearly violative of right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is likely to take long time being at the initial stage after a lapse of considerable time. The present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking regular bail in a case involving Sections 307, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC, 1860 and Section 25 of Arms Act.
Contention regarding severity of injuries and applicability of Section 307 of IPC.
Opposition to bail based on specific allegations and involvement in multiple cases.
Consideration of right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Differentiating between bail under Section 439 and 438 of Cr.P.C.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking regular bail in a case involving serious charges under IPC and Arms Act. The petitioner's counsel argued that the injuries were not life-threatening, questioning the invocation of Section 307 of IPC. The State counsel opposed bail, citing specific allegations of firearm injury and the petitioner's active role in the offense. The petitioner had been in custody for over 2 years. The court noted the delay in trial proceedings and the importance of speedy trials under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The State counsel highlighted the petitioner's involvement in multiple cases, including a conviction in one case. The court referenced a previous judgment emphasizing the right to speedy trial and the minimal pre-conviction detention period. The court differentiated between bail and suspension of sentence, noting the presumption of innocence in bail matters. Despite the petitioner's criminal history, the court considered the need for a fair trial based on evidence in the current case alone.

The court acknowledged the petitioner's prior convictions and pending cases but stressed the importance of evaluating evidence within each case individually. Emphasizing the right to a speedy trial, the court granted the petitioner regular bail, considering the prolonged incarceration and the need for a balanced approach. The court allowed the State to seek bail cancellation if the petitioner reoffended but clarified that the decision did not reflect an opinion on the case's merits.