IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.746 of 2026 Date of Decision: 04.06.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Shamshudeen ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …....Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advcoate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. ASI Desh Raj, IO, PS Baddi, present in person along with record. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Respondent-State has filed status report and ASI Desh Raj, IO, PS Baddi, has come present along with record. 2. Close scrutiny of record made available to this Court reveals that petitioner is accused of heinous crime punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, however, this Court finds that trial Court has already recorded the statements of 12 prosecution witnesses and for recording the statements of remaining 20 prosecution witnesses, case has been fixed for hearing on 08th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th October, 2026. 2 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General states that all the witnesses shall be examined on the dates fixed by the Court below, failing which this Court may consider the prayer, if any, made for grant of bail. 4. No doubt, petitioner is behind bars for more than five years, however, careful perusal of status report reveals that he brutally murdered his wife and entire incident stands recorded in the CCTV cameras. Having taken note of seriousness of offence committed by petitioner, coupled with the fact that trial is nearing completion, this Court is not persuaded to consider the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner qua grant of bail at this stage. 5. Faced with aforesaid situation, learned counsel representing the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition, at this stage, with liberty to file afresh, if required and desired. Ordered accordingly. 6. Before parting, this Court, having taken note of the fact that bail petitioner is behind bars for more than five years and learned trial Court has fixed the dates in continuity for recording the statements of remaining 20 prosecution witnesses, hopes and trusts that learned trial Court would make all out efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably on or before 30th November, 2026, failing which this Court shall have no option but to consider the prayer, if 3 any, made for grant of bail by the petitioner on the ground of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial. 7. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that in no eventuality, adjournment, if any, shall be taken by the prosecution on the dates fixed in the case at hand and endeavour would be made to examine all the witnesses on the dates fixed by the Court, so that needful is done within the stipulated time. Application, if any, for extension of time by the learned trial Court shall not be appreciated. Registry is directed to apprise the learned trial Court with regard to passing of instant order, enabling it to do the needful within the stipulated time. June 04, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge