212 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18547-2025 DECIDED ON: 09.04.2025 PREM SINGH .....PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Harvinder Singh Maan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the third time under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 for the grant of Regular Bail to petitioner in FIR No. 18 dated 13.01.2022 under Sections 302, 323, 34 of IPC, 1860, PS City Tohana, District Fatehabad (Annexure P- 1). 2. Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record. 3. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition at this stage. However, he submits that that a direction be issued to trial Court to expedite the trial, as after framing of charges on 03.08.2022, out of total 19 prosecution witnesses only 06 witnesses have been examined so far. 4. Prayer is accepted. 5. Dismissed as withdrawn at this stage. POONAM NEGI 2025.04.17 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18547-2025 -2- 6. This court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that "Speedy trial" and "fair trial" to a person accused of a crime are integral part of Article 21. There is, however, qualitative difference between the right to speedy trial and the accused's right of fair trial. Unlike the accused's right of fair trial, deprivation of the right to speedy trial does not per se prejudice the accused in defending himself. The right to speedy trial is in its very nature relative. It depends upon diverse circumstances. Each case of delay in conclusion of a criminal trial has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of such case. Mere lapse of several years since the commencement of prosecution by itself may not justify the discontinuance of prosecution or dismissal of indictment. The factors concerning the accused's right to speedy trial have to be weighed vis-a-vis the impact of the crime on society and the confidence of the people in judicial system. Speedy trial secures rights to an accused but it does not preclude the rights of public justice. The nature and gravity of crime, persons involved, social impact and societal needs must be weighed along with the right of the accused to speedy trial and if the balance tilts in favour of the former the long delay in conclusion of criminal trial should not operate against the continuation of prosecution and if the right of the accused in the facts and circumstances of the case and exigencies of situation tilts the balance in his favour, the prosecution may be brought to an end. These principles must apply as well when the appeal court is confronted with the question whether or not retrial of an accused should be ordered." 7. Further reliance can be placed upon the dictum of Apex court in “Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh” 2020(3) SCC (Cri) 828, wherein it has been held that “Expeditious disposal is undoubtedly required in criminal POONAM NEGI 2025.04.17 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-18547-2025 -3- matters and that would naturally be part of guarantee of fair trial. However, the attempts to expedite the process should not be at the expense of the basic elements of fairness and the opportunity to the accused, on which postulates, the entire criminal administration of justice is founded. In the pursuit for expeditious disposal, the cause of justice must never be allowed to suffer or be sacrificed. What is paramount is the cause of justice and keeping the basic ingredients which secure that as a core idea and ideal, the process may be expedited, but fast tracking of process must never ever result in burying the cause of justice’’. 8. In view of the discussions made hereinabove this court deems it appropriate to direct the trial court to make an endeavour to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the receipt of certified copy of this order. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 09.04.2025 JUDGE Poonam Negi Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No POONAM NEGI 2025.04.17 18:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document