2024 (10) TMI 497 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of regular bail - inordinate delay of six days in lodging the instant FIR - supply of intoxicant goods - dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender as he is involved in two more cases - right to speedy trial - HELD THAT - This Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna 1979 (3) TMI 215 - SUPREME COURT . Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction period of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. This Court has held that 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 land the petitioner in a situation of denial of concession of bail. The petitioner is hereby directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Relief sought for grant of regular bail in a criminal case under Sections 304, 34 IPC.
2. Delay in lodging FIR, turning of material witness hostile, lack of incriminating evidence connecting the petitioner to the offense.
3. Argument for petitioner's release based on custody period, bail granted to co-accused, delay in trial, and principles of bail as per Supreme Court judgments.
4. State's opposition based on petitioner's criminal record and involvement in other cases.
5. Decision to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief for regular bail in a criminal case under Sections 304, 34 IPC. The jurisdiction of the Court was invoked for the third time under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The FIR detailed the prosecution story involving the death of the petitioner's son due to intoxicant overdose supplied by certain individuals. The complainant accused specific persons of supplying intoxicants leading to the son's death.

2. The delay in lodging the FIR, turning of the material witness hostile, and lack of incriminating evidence connecting the petitioner to the offense were raised as contentions. The petitioner's counsel argued that the delay in lodging the FIR and the hostile witness weakened the prosecution's case against the petitioner. It was highlighted that the co-accused had already been granted bail, indicating a discrepancy in treatment.

3. The analysis considered various factors, including the petitioner's custody period, bail granted to the co-accused, delay in trial proceedings, and principles of bail as per Supreme Court judgments. The Court noted the significant delay in trial progress, with only one out of 17 prosecution witnesses examined. Citing the Apex Court's judgment in "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh," the Court emphasized the general rule of granting bail and the importance of a humane approach in judicial decisions.

4. The State opposed the petitioner's release based on his criminal record and involvement in other cases. However, the Court referred to a previous order highlighting that bail decisions should primarily consider the evidence and circumstances of the current case, rather than solely relying on past criminal antecedents.

5. Ultimately, the Court decided to grant regular bail to the petitioner based on the analysis of factors such as the custody period, delay in trial, and principles of bail. The petitioner was directed to be released on furnishing bail and surety bonds, with a clarification that the decision did not reflect an opinion on the case's merits.