S.K. Gupta, J.@mdashThis application has been preferred to dip out the accused, Ashok Kumar and Sohan Singh, facing trial for the commission
of offence contrary to Sections 302/307/323/324/34 RPC before the Trial Court, pending in the stage of recording prosecution evidence.
2. The allegations against the accused stemmed out of the record in brief are that the petitioners-accused accompanied by other confederate with a
criminal intention and armed with sharp-edged weapon to eliminate Pawan Kumar and Yash Paul, attacked on the victims at Kundran, as a result
of which, Pawan Kumar succumbed to the injuries and Yash Paul was lucky enough to have escaped with injuries alone. A case was registered
against the accused and investigation ensued. On the conclusion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused before the Sessions
Judge, Udhampur on 29.12.1997. After the framing of the charge against the accused on 18.2.1998, the challan was set down for recording
prosecution evidence.
3. Mr. Harbans Lal, ld. counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that as many as 43 calendars have been fixed during all this period, but the
prosecution has not been able to complete its evidence and the delay in producing the witnesses is clearly attributed to the prosecution and, thus,
entitled the accused to be enlarged on bail.
4. Objections have not been filed. Mr. S.C. Gupta, learned AAG appearing for the respondent-State, however, submitted that there is copious
evidence available on record produced by the prosecution during trial to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. His further
submission is that nature and character of evidence has to be taken into account by the Court while adverting to the question of grant or refusal of
bail. Merely on the ground that there had been some delay on the part of the prosecution in examining the witnesses does not entitle the petitioners-
accused to be released on bail in a heinous crime like murder, which provides for death penalty or imprisonment for life in case of conviction. He
also submitted that Section 497(1) of the Cr.P.C. puts an embargo on the exercise of discretion by the Court in grant of bail in such cases unless it
is squarely covered by the exceptions enumerated in the proviso to Section 497(1).
5. It is pertinent to point out at the first flush that the nature of offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail. More heinous is the
crime the greater is the chance of the rejection of the bail, though, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter. Certain other relevant
considerations, which must weigh with the Court when considering the question of bail, are the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence, the
severity of punishment in case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence; and last but not the least, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in
support of the charge besides frivolity and genuineness of the prosecution.
6. In the instant case, the accused-petitioners are facing trial in a murder case. Without commenting much on the merits of the case, but keeping in
view the allegations made against the accused-petitioners, coupled with the evidence of the witnesses recorded during trial to support such
allegations, I am not persuaded to allow the application and grant bail to the petitioners. The petitioners' application possessing no merit is,
accordingly, dismissed. But before parting with the application and in view of the fact that to have a speedy justice is the fundamental right, which
flows from Article 21 of the Constitution, the Trial Court is directed to fix the calender for recording the entire prosecution evidence to be
produced by the prosecution. In case the prosecution needs assistance to procure dasti summons for effecting services on the witnesses on their
own responsibility and ensure their presence in the Court on the date to be fixed by the Court, the Trial Court shall allow the prosecution
accordingly, and in case the evidence is not produced on the dates fixed by the Trial Court, the Trial Court shall cause their evidence closed
without giving further opportunity. All out endeavour shall be made by the Trial Court for the completion of the trial with utmost promptitude and
disposal of the case within a period of three months, of course, after affording sufficient opportunity to the accused to adduce defence evidence, if
so desired. The application is disposed of.
