REEMA SAINI 2026.07.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-19284 of 2026(O&M) 21.05.2021, they made a video of his home from mobile and were keeping a tab. On 22.05.2021 at about 8:00 p.m. Ajai, Gulu, Vishal, Sunnu came in front of the house when he and his brother Kanwar Singh @ Pakari, aged 35 years, were sitting on chair at the main gate of the house. They came, shot his brother and injured him, whereafter they ran away. After arranging vehicle, he and his family members shifted injured to Sheila Hospital for medical treatment, where he died. In the incident Surendra son of Baljeet, Bissu @ Vishwas son of Sube Singh Yadav, Sachin @ Kachchu son of Krishan Yadav, Pawan Yadav and other persons may also have participated. Legal action was prayed for. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was in custody for the last 5 years. Vide order dated 04.12.2025, Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. Despite directions,trial had not been concluded. Bullets recovered from the dead body, as per FSL report,did not match with the pistol recovered from the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the right of speedy trial of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, he was entitled to release on bail. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for regular bail submitting the petitioner’s complicity was made out from the CCTV Footage installed near the spot of incident in the house of Kanwar Singh and Dinesh son of Bajrang. Counterymade pistol was recovered on 29.05.2021 from possession of the petitioner and was taken into police possession. Recovery of motorcycle used in the commission of offence was also effected from possession of the petitioner. Prosecution witnesses had been examined in the REEMA SAINI 2026.07.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-19284 of 2026(O&M) case and had fully supported version of the prosecution. The offence committed was heinous and petitioner was not entitled to concession of bail. Learned counsel further submits that trial was near conclusion as only 4 out of 29 witnesses remained to be examined. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant, too has opposed the prayer for regular bail submitting that there was no change in circumstances after dismissal of second bail application. Refuting the argument that FSL report was not incriminating he submits that the report of FSL connected the recovered bullet with the pistol used in the commission of crime. He too prayed for dismissal of the application for bail. 6. Personal liberty is a cherished constitutional principle embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right to speedy trial too has been recognized as a facet of the right to life under Article 21 of Constitution of India. However, in matters involving serious and gruesome crimes, the Courts are required to balance the rights of the victim, those of the society at large and of the accused. 7. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 (SC) : 2004(7) SCC 528, the Apex Court held as under: xxxx The Court also in specific terms held that : "the condition laid down under section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is REEMA SAINI 2026.07.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-19284 of 2026(O&M) not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail." 8. In Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra, 2005(1) Apex Criminal 319 : 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 712 (SC) : 2005(3) SCC 143, this Court observed : "The object underlying the cancellation of bail is to protect the fair trial and secure justice being done to the society by preventing the accused who is set at liberty by the bail order from tampering with the evidence in the heinous crime..... It hardly requires to be stated that once a person is released on bail in serious criminal cases where the punishment is quite stringent and deterrent, the accused in order to get away from the clutches of the same indulge in various activities like tampering with the prosecution witnesses, threatening the family members of the deceased victim and also create problems of law and order situation." 9. Thus, judicial discretion in matters of bail must be exercised cautiously, based upon relevant considerations. Ordinarily in cases of long detention, courts lean favorably towards the accused but there is no straight jacket formula that an accused would be automatically entitled to bail on the on the ground of prolonged incarceration, discretion has to be exercised considering the intrinsic merits of the case and gravity of charge. 10. The petitioner has been attributed principal role in the heinous crime. Investigation has found him involved in the offence of murder.. There are reasonable grounds to believe that a prima-facie case is made out against him. Even though petitioner has been in custody for a fairly long period, the seriousness of allegations weigh heavily against him. Long custody, by itself, cannot entitle him to bail considering the manner in which the crime was committed, the role attributed to petitioner and the quantum REEMA SAINI 2026.07.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh 5 CRM-M-19284 of 2026(O&M) of punishment, conviction may entail. Moreover, trial is near conclusion. Prayer for regular bail is therefore, declined. 9. Since the trial has been considerably delayed and considering the long period of custody of petitioner, learned Trial Court is requested to conclude the trial expeditiously by taking it up on day to day basis. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) JUDGE 10.07.2026. reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI 2026.07.10 16:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh