Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 271 (CHH)

AMIT JOGI v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2006-05-03

S.R.NAYAK

body2006
( 1 ) THIS is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code ). This is the second bail application filed by the applicant herein in this Court. The first application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23-9-2005. This Court, however, in paragraph 28 of the order observed thus:"for the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant Amit jogi. Nonetheless, the applicant Amit Jogi is a young man aged about 27 years having a long future and has remained in confinement since July, 2005 on the basis of the materials collected in course of the investigation by the CBI which are yet to be tested and proved in the trial. The offence for which he has been arrested, as stated above, is of a serious nature which concerns the general public of not only the city of Raipur but also the entire State of Chhattisgarh. This is, therefore, a fit case in which the trial should be expedited and completed within six months, if necessary, by separating the cases of absconders. Hence, while rejecting the application for bail I direct that the learned Sessions Judge, Raipur will ensure that the trial of the applicant and other accused persons who are not absconding, is entrusted to one of the Sessions Judges who will take up the trial on day to day basis and complete the same within a period of six months from today. The records of the trial Court will be forthwith sent back to the trial Court within a week from today. Before, i finally part, I make it clear that whatever has been observed in this order was only for the purpose of considering the prayer of the applicant for bail and the observations made in this order will not in any way influence the trial Court in any manner while finally deciding the case. "it was ordered by this Court that the trial be completed within six months of the order. Thereafter, the applicant applied for bail in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The bail was applied on merit of the case as well as on the ground of ill-health of the applicant's father. "it was ordered by this Court that the trial be completed within six months of the order. Thereafter, the applicant applied for bail in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The bail was applied on merit of the case as well as on the ground of ill-health of the applicant's father. By order dated 5-12-2005, the hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the order of this court and rejected the prayer for bail. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted interim bail to the applicant for a period of seven days to enable him to visit his ailing father at New Delhi in police custody. ( 2 ) THE applicant submitting that there was no prospect of the trial being completed within the stipulated period of six months laid down by this Court moved an application for bail in the trial Court, namely, the court of learned Third Additional Sessions judge, Raipur. By order dated 23-2-2006, the learned trial Judge rejected the said bail application. In the circumstance, the applicant has moved this second bail application before this Court contending that the prosecution has willfully violated the order of this court to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of the rejection of bail order, that is to say, on or before 23-3-2006 and that there is no possibility of concluding the trial in the near future and also on the ground that all material witnzesses are already examined. It is submitted that their evidence would in no way helpful to the prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy levelled against the applicant. ( 3 ) INITIALLY, the bail application was placed before Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. and since His lordship was disabled to deal with the application, it was subsequently placed before d. R. Deshmukh, J. D. R. Deshmukh, J. as could be seen in his order dated 19-4-2006 thought that since the earlier bail application was decided by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, it is appropriate that the second bail application also might be placed before hon'ble the Chief Justice. Accordingly, it was posted before this Bench, ( 4 ) THE applicant is facing trial in the court of the Special Judge, Raipur for offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Sections 302, 324, 427, 193 and 259 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, it was posted before this Bench, ( 4 ) THE applicant is facing trial in the court of the Special Judge, Raipur for offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Sections 302, 324, 427, 193 and 259 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 5 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that on 4-6-2003 at about 11. 00 p. m. Ram Avtar jaggi, a leader of Nationalist Congress Party, was shot near Maudhapara Police Station in Raipur. Inspector V. K. Pandey of the maudhapara Police Station reached the spot of the incident and brought Ram Avtar Jaggi to the Police Station and lodged FIR 104 of 2003 under Sections 307 and 447 of the indian Penal Code against unknown persons. Ram Avtar Jaggi was then sent to mecahara Hospital where he died. Another fir No. 105 of 2003 was lodged by Satish jaggi, son of Ram Avtar Jaggi alleging that the then Chief Minister Shri Ajit Jogi and his son Amit Jogi were involved in the murder and their men had committed the murder. Investigation was taken up by the chhattisgarh Police and a charge-sheet was filed against five accused persons namely avinash Singh alias Lallan, Jamwant kashyap. Shyam Sunder, Vinod Singh and vishwanath Rajbhar under Sections 302, 120-B, 427, 34, IPC and 25/27 of the Arms act and as per the said charge-sheet Ram avtar Jaggi was killed by the aforesaid persons for the purpose of loot. In January, 2004 Shri Ajit Jogi ceased to be the Chief minister and a new Government was formed in the State of Chhattisgarh. The State Government entrusted the investigation of the case to the CBI. On examination of the records, the Fast Track Court, Raipur ordered further investigation on the allegations in the FIR No. 105 of 2003 and further investigation was taken up by the CBI with the permission of the Court and after investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the applicant Amit Jogi, Chiman Singh, Yahya dhebar, Abhay Goel and others under Section 120-B, IPC read with Sections 302, 324, 427, 193, 218, IPC. ( 6 ) THE case of the prosecution is that a splinter party of the Congress (I) is formed under the name of the National Congress party (NCP ). Ram Avtar Jaggi (deceased) was the treasurer of NCP. ( 6 ) THE case of the prosecution is that a splinter party of the Congress (I) is formed under the name of the National Congress party (NCP ). Ram Avtar Jaggi (deceased) was the treasurer of NCP. A rally of NCP was proposed to be held at Raipur on 10-6-2003 which was to be attended by some very important and key leaders of NCP at the national level. It was reported that lacs of people would be gathered in the said rally at Raipur and this caused a threat to the ruling Congress Party headed by Shri Ajit jogi who is the father of the applicant and the then Chief Minister of the State, especially as elections to the State Assembly were due in November, 2003. It is alleged that in order to frustrate the successful organizing of the rally, a criminal conspiracy was hatched by the applicant, Chiman Singh, yahya Dhebar, Abhay Goel and others to eliminate Ram Avtar Jaggi in a meeting held at Green Park Hotel in Raipur on or about 21-5 2003. It is also alleged that the applicant conspired with Chiman Singh for the commission of the murder of Ram Avtar jaggi. It is also alleged that there were other meetings at the Country Club and the official residence of the Chief Minister. It is further alleged that pursuant to the said criminal conspiracy, Chiman Singh and others stopped the vehicle in which Ram Avtar jaggi was travelling on 4-6-2003 at about 11. 00 p. m. and that Chiman Singh shot Ram avtar Jaggi with a country-made pistol and thus committed the murder of Ram Avtar Jaggi. ( 7 ) I have heard Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, shri Bhishma Kinger, learned standing counsel for the CBI/second respondent and shri Pramod Kumar Verma, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State of chhattisgarh/respondent No. 1. ( 7 ) I have heard Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, shri Bhishma Kinger, learned standing counsel for the CBI/second respondent and shri Pramod Kumar Verma, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State of chhattisgarh/respondent No. 1. ( 8 ) SHRI Surendra Singh, at the threshold, would submit that in Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 : (1980 cri LJ 1125), a Constitution Bench of the supreme Court has held that the Sessions judge and the High Court have wide powers under Section 439 of the Code to grant bail and that the restrictions on the powers of the Magistrate to grant bail under section 437 of the Code are not applicable to grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code. Shri Surendra Singh would submit that in the said decision, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that the principle to be deduced from the various sections in the Code was that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Shri surendra Singh further pointed out that in the said decision, the Supreme Court held that the bail is not to be withheld as a punishment but only when the accused is likely to abscond or likely to tamper with the evidence. ( 9 ) IT was contended by Shri Surendra singh that though this Court directed that the trial should be completed in six months, it could not be completed due to dilatory tactics practised by CBI and that the applicant in no way responsible for the delay. It was also contended by Shri Surendra Singh that all material witnesses on whom the prosecution relies for proving the case of conspiracy against the applicant have already been examined and their evidence taken together does not make out a case of conspiracy against the applicant. It was submitted that only few formal witnesses are left to be examined. It was submitted that the specific case of the prosecution is that in pursuance of the conspiracy, Chiman singh committed the murder of Ram Avtar jaggi. To prove the above charge, the prosecution is relying upon the evidence of Abdul jamil Khan (PW-53), Raees Khan (PW-50)and Banke Bihari (PW-128 ). It was submitted that the specific case of the prosecution is that in pursuance of the conspiracy, Chiman singh committed the murder of Ram Avtar jaggi. To prove the above charge, the prosecution is relying upon the evidence of Abdul jamil Khan (PW-53), Raees Khan (PW-50)and Banke Bihari (PW-128 ). It was pointed out that Abdul Jameel Khan is the witness on the spot, but, he failed to identify any of the accused and staled that he was not in a position to identify the accused including chiman Singh. It was further submitted by shri Surendra Singh that Banke Bihari (PW-128) also stated that he did not know anything about the case. Shri Surendra Singh would argue that there is absolutely no evidence of murder having been committed by accused Chiman Singh. ( 10 ) IT was next contended that in so far as conspiracy to murder Ram Avtar Jaggi is concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Reginald Jeremiah (PW-85), siddharth Asati (PW-97), Raj Awasthy (PW-100), vijay Jain (PW-73) and Rohit Prasad (PW-126 ). It was pointed out that out of these witnesses except Reginald Jeremiah (PW-85), all other witnesses examined by the prosecution not at all supported the charge of conspiracy. Shri Surendra Singh would contend that the evidence of Reginald jeremiah is not at all trustworthy and is unreliable, because, Reginald Jeremiah had been dismissed from his job by Rohit Prasad (PW-126) and the applicant who is said to have secured the said job to him did not intercede in the matter on his behalf as desired by him and therefore, Reginald jeremiah was annoyed by that attitude of the applicant and that is why he had a motive to falsely implicate the applicant in the crime. It was also pointed out that the conduct of Reginald Jeremiah in not disclosing the fact of conspiracy for a period of almost two years also totally weakens his testimony and renders it unreliable. It was further contended by Shri Surendra Singh that Vijay jain (PW-73) who is the Manager of the green Park Hotel in his evidence has stated no meeting had taken place on 21-5-2003 in which the applicant was present in any room and no room was booked before 15th july, 2003. It was further contended by Shri Surendra Singh that Vijay jain (PW-73) who is the Manager of the green Park Hotel in his evidence has stated no meeting had taken place on 21-5-2003 in which the applicant was present in any room and no room was booked before 15th july, 2003. It was submitted by Shri Singh that the evidence of all material witnesses has already been recorded and that evidence even taken cumulatively would not make out any case against the applicant in the commission of the murder of Ram Avtar Jaggi. According to Shri Surendra Singh, the evidence adduced in the case would shatter the conspiracy theory and the alleged meeting on 21-5-2003 itself becomes very doubtful. It was contended by Shri Surendra Singh that the evidence of Rohit Prasad (PW-126)prima facie would create a serious doubt about the credibility of the testimony of reginald Jeremiah (PW-85 ). ( 11 ) SHRI Surendra Singh would next argue that the prosecution case is that the conspiracy culminated in the murder of Ram avtar Jaggi by Chiman Singh and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that part of the case also. It was submitted by Shri surendra Singh that two eye-witnesses, namely, Abdul Jameel Khan (PW-53) and banke Bihari (PW-128) have turned hostile in Court and the statement of Banke Bihari recorded under Section 164 of the Code could not be read as substantive evidence. It was submitted that Banke Bihari (PW-126)has stated that he did not know anything about the case. It was argued that there was no murder having been committed by accused Chiman Singh. It was submitted that when there was no evidence on record that any of the accused committed murder of ram Avtar Jaggi and when there is no evidence against Chiman Singh, then, the very intent or purpose of conspiracy fails. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he was deliberately involved in the crime by political opponents of his father. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and he was deliberately involved in the crime by political opponents of his father. It was submitted that the applicant is totally innocent, cultured, well-educated man with no objectionable antecedents; he was never involved in commission of any crime in the past; he has been languishing in jail for no fault of his; in the meanwhile his father suffered severe heart attack and he is the only child of the parents; his father is yet to recover from heart attack and therefore looking from any angle the applicant deserves to be released on bail. It was also pointed out that though the learned trial Judge has sought for six more months for completion of the trial, it is very much doubtful that the trial Judge would complete the trial within the extended time of six months having regard to the dilatory tactics and improper moves of the prosecution. It was pointed out by Shri Surendra singh that apart from examination of some formal witnesses and investigating officers, the accused numbering 31 have to be examined under Section 313 of the Code and thereafter, the defence has to be examined and all this will consume considerable time. Lastly, it was submitted by Shri Surendra singh that since there is no evidence at all against the applicant, no purpose of the state would be served by keeping him in jail. It was further submitted that 'bail and not jail' is the ordinary rule, and refusal of bail to the applicant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would tantamount to a punishment. ( 12 ) SHRI Bhishma Kinger, learned counsel for the CBI, per contra, would, at the threshold, contend that the grounds urged now for bail were also the grounds urged in the first bail application, and since the first bail was rejected by this Court, this application too was liable to be rejected in limine. He would next contend that the CBI is not responsible for delay in trial. It was stated that there are instances where the applicant though in jail threatening and influencing the witnesses and therefore, if he is released on bail, he is likely to tamper the prosecution witnesses. He would next contend that the CBI is not responsible for delay in trial. It was stated that there are instances where the applicant though in jail threatening and influencing the witnesses and therefore, if he is released on bail, he is likely to tamper the prosecution witnesses. It was submitted by Shri kinger that Shekhar Singh and Horilal, two important witnesses, have yet to be examined and there is a reasonable apprehension that if bail is granted to the applicant, these witnesses will also turn hostile. It was contended that Rohit Prasad (PW-126)'s evidence that he was in London on 21-5-2003 is not reliable, because, he is a friend of the applicant and the seals in the passport might have been forged. As regard the testimony of Banke Bihari (PW-128), it was submitted by Shri Bhishma Kinger that the witness was under the influence of the applicant and therefore, he stated falsely in the trial Court. In that view of the matter, his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code can be relied upon. It was lastly contended by shri Bhishma Kinger that the testimony of reginald Jeremiah would go to show that the applicant hatched the conspiracy resulting in the murder of Ram Avtar Jaggi. ( 13 ) SHRI Pramod Verma, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State of chhattisgarh would only submit that since the trial is in progress, any observations that may be made by this Court might influence the trial Judge and therefore, the appropriate thing to do is to direct the learned trial judge to complete the trial within a specific time that may be fixed by this Court and till then to continue the status quo that obtains as on today, thereby meaning that the second bail application be dismissed. ( 14 ) I have anxiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the grounds on which earlier bail was sought and the order of this Court dated 23-9-2005 rejecting the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code and the changed circumstances there afterwards, the evidence recorded so far and all other relevant factors and circumstances which have bearing in the decision-making and the considerations which normally weigh with the Court in granting bail in non-bailable offences, as laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayendra saraswati Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu, air 2005 SC 716 : (2005 Cri LJ 883 ). ( 15 ) IT is well settled that an order refusing an application for bail on an earlier occasion does not necessarily preclude another on a later occasion giving more materials, subsequent developments and different considerations. The power of the High Court and the Court of Sessions to grant bail under section 439 of the Code is not controlled by the provisions of Section 437 of the Code, but, the same nonetheless constitutes one of the relevant considerations amongst several others. While considering the application for bail, it is necessary to take into consideration, first whether the accused would take up the trial without hampering it and secondly, whether he would subject himself to the verdict of the Court. The Court must also consider other factors such as, the serious nature of the crime and the gravity of the circumstances in which such an offence is alleged to have been committed, the position and status of the accused with reference to the victims and witnesses, of repeating the offences, of jeopardizing his own life and other relevant grounds. Under Section 439 of the Code, the powers of the High court in the matter of granting bail are very wide. Nevertheless, where the offences alleged are non-bailable, relevant considerations have to be taken into account before deciding whether bail should be granted or refused. One of the main consideration in granting bail would be as to whether on the basis of the evidence and the documents on which prosecution relies, it can be said that there are grounds to believe that the accused are involved in offences punishable with death or transportation for life. One of the main consideration in granting bail would be as to whether on the basis of the evidence and the documents on which prosecution relies, it can be said that there are grounds to believe that the accused are involved in offences punishable with death or transportation for life. It is held and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases that while considering the bail application, the Court should not consider the case on merit in detail and only prima facie satisfaction of the Court is required. The Court should avoid elaborate documentation of merits and detailed examination of evidence. In other words, the Court must, while deciding the bail application, touch the barest minimum facts necessary to come to the conclusion about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case, and if necessary, may mention the arguments advanced and reject the same if they require the Court to go into the details which merely lead to the conclusion based on some facts and assumptions. At the stage of deciding the bail application, the Court is not dragged into minute details and in an areas of conjectures of hypothesis. The Court should view pros and cons of a case undeterred by the fact who is the accused, but always keeping in mind the commitment of the law that the guilty should be brought to book and there should not be failure of public justice. The latter is a paramount consideration for the Court to bear in mind. ( 16 ) IN this case, no overt act is attributed to the applicant in the commission of the alleged crime. The specific case of the prosecution against the applicant is that he is the brain behind the conspiracy to murder ram Avtar Jaggi. According to the prosecution, a conspiracy was hatched at the hotel Green Park on 21-5-2003 in which reginald Jaremiah (PW-85), Siddharth Asati (PW-97), Raj Awasthy (PW-100) and Rohit prasad (PW-126) were present. ( 17 ) IN a criminal case the onus lies on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused was directly and personally connected with the acts or omissions attributable to the crime committed by him. The offence of criminal conspiracy under section 120-A is a distinct offence introduced for the first time in the year 1913 in Chapter V-A of the IPC. The offence of criminal conspiracy under section 120-A is a distinct offence introduced for the first time in the year 1913 in Chapter V-A of the IPC. The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. As held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in param Hans Yadav and Sadanand Tripathi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 955 : (1987 cri LJ 789), it is true that it is difficult to support the charge of conspiracy with direct evidence in every case but if the prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence, a clear link has to be established and the chain has to be completed, otherwise it would indeed be hazardous to accept a part of the link as a complete one and on the basis of such incomplete evidence, the allegation of conspiracy cannot be accepted. ( 18 ) THE Supreme Court in Saju v. State of Kerala, AIR 2001 SC 175 : (2001 Cri LJ 102) in para 6 of the judgment held thus :"to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy the prosecution is required to establish that two or more persons had agreed to do or caused to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such crime or is merely incidental to that object. To attract the applicability of Section 120-B it has to be proved that all the accused had the intention and they had agreed to commit the crime. There is no doubt that conspiracy is hatched in private and in secrecy for which direct evidence would rarely be available. It is also not necessary that each member to a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy. " ( 19 ) AMONG the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy against the applicant. Siddharth Asati (PW-97) and Raj Singh (PW-100)have categorically denied that they were present in the meeting alleged to have held on 21-5-2003 at the Hotel Green Park, raipur in which a criminal conspiracy was hatched to murder Ram Avtar Jaggi. Furthermore, rohit Prasad (PW-126) has stated that he was not at all in Raipur on 21-5-2003 and he was in fact in London between 21-5-2003 and 30-5-2003. He has produced his passport (Ex. Furthermore, rohit Prasad (PW-126) has stated that he was not at all in Raipur on 21-5-2003 and he was in fact in London between 21-5-2003 and 30-5-2003. He has produced his passport (Ex. D-10) to support his above plea and in Ex. D-10 there are entries showing his departure from India on 21-5 2003 and his return on 30-5-2003. It also needs to be noticed that Vijay Jain (PW-73) who is the Manager of Hotel Green Park, Raipur has stated that no meeting had taken place on 21-5-2003 at Hotel Green Park, Raipur in which the applicant was present in any room and that no room was booked before 15th of July, 2003. This is the state of evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy against the applicant. The only isolated evidence in support of that charge is that of Reginald Jeremiah (PW-85), but, it was suggested that his testimony is unreliable not only in view of the evidence of siddharth Asati (PW-97), Raj Singh (PW-100), rohit Prasad (PW-126) and Vijay Jain (PW-73) but also for the reason that Reginald jeremiah (PW-85) had a motive to falsely involve the applicant in the commission of the offence. It was submitted that Reginald jeremiah (PW-85) had been dismissed from his job by Rohit Prasad (PW-126) and that he had expected that the applicant would intervene on his behalf to retain his job, but, to his disappointment, the applicant did not intervene in the matter and, therefore, raginald Jeremiah (PW-85) had a motive to falsely involve the applicant in the commission of the crime. ( 20 ) IT appears that the evidence so far adduced by the prosecution does not appear to prove the case of the prosecution that Ram avtar Jaggi was murdered by Chiman Singh in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched in the meeting held on 21-5-2003 at the Hotel green Park, Raipur. The two eye-witnesses, namely, Abdul Jameel Khan (PW-53) and banke Bihari (PW-128) who were examined to prove the above charge, have turned hostile in Court. Banke Bihari (PW-128) in his deposition has stated that he did not know anything about the case. The evidence of abdul Jammel Khan and Banke Bihari would, therefore, not support the case of the prosecution. The two eye-witnesses, namely, Abdul Jameel Khan (PW-53) and banke Bihari (PW-128) who were examined to prove the above charge, have turned hostile in Court. Banke Bihari (PW-128) in his deposition has stated that he did not know anything about the case. The evidence of abdul Jammel Khan and Banke Bihari would, therefore, not support the case of the prosecution. If the murder of Ram Avtar jaggi by Chiman Singh is not proved, then, the conspiracy theory propounded by the prosecution presently stands shattered. However, it is the contention of Shri Bhishma kinger, learned counsel for the CBI that the statement of Banke Bihari (PW-128) recorded under Section 164 of the Code should be relied upon. The submission is not well founded. In Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit kaur. AIR 1972 SC 468 : (1972 Cri LJ 267)the Supreme Court held thus :"a statement under Section 164 of the code of Criminal Procedure is not substantive evidence. It can be used to corroborate the statement of a witness. "furthermore, in State through the Delhi administration v. Sanjay Gandhi, AIR 1978 sc 961 : (1978 Cri LJ 952), the Supreme court opined that the fact that the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile cannot by itself justify the inference that the accused has won them over. The objective fact that witnesses have turned hostile must be shown to bear a casual connection with the subjective involvement therein of the accused. ( 21 ) SO far in the trial all material witnesses to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy and murder of Ram Avtar Jaggi by chiman Singh in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy have been examined and only the formal official witnesses are yet to be examined by the prosecution. From the quality of the evidence so far adduced by the prosecution to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy and the murder of Ram Avtar jaggi by Chiman Singh in pursuance of that criminal conspiracy, it cannot be said that there is a prima facie evidence against the applicant to prove his involvement in the alleged crime. ( 22 ) UNFORTUNATELY, the trial Court did not complete the trial within the time specified by this Court vide its order dated 23-9-2005. The learned trial Judge had sought extension of time by six more months to conclude the trial. Therefore, this Court vide its order dated 27-4 2006 in Misc. ( 22 ) UNFORTUNATELY, the trial Court did not complete the trial within the time specified by this Court vide its order dated 23-9-2005. The learned trial Judge had sought extension of time by six more months to conclude the trial. Therefore, this Court vide its order dated 27-4 2006 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 766 of 2006 extended the time up to the end of September, 2006 and while doing so, the court called for a report from the learned trial Judge as to why the trial could not be concluded within six months specified by this Court. Even now a doubt is expressed as to whether the trial Judge would be able to conclude the trial within the extended time of six months. Be that as it may, having perused the materials placed before the court, there is nothing to show that the applicant accused or other accused were responsible or contributed anything for the delay in the trial. It is true that the delay in trial itself would not be a valid ground to grant bail to an accused in a non-bailable offence, but, delay in trial certainly will be a relevant circumstances to be considered by the Court along with other relevant grounds urged for grant of bail. ( 23 ) KEEPING in mind the entire set of circumstances, the evidence so far adduced by the prosecution to prove the criminal conspiracy and the murder of Ram Avtar Jaggi by Chiman Singh, which is too tenuous and keeping in view that the applicant earlier had appeared promptly before the CBI on notice given to him, there does not appear to be any apprehension that he would abscond. The apprehension expressed by Shri bhishma Kinger that if the applicant is granted bail, he is likely to tamper/influence the witness yet to be examined is also not well-founded. Firstly, the witnesses yet to be examined are formal witnesses and investigation officers only. Further, there is not even a single complaint by any witness that the applicant has indulged in tampering of witnesses. ( 24 ) THE applicant, it is stated, is a well educated young man aged 27 years and he does not have any objectionable antecedents/criminal past records. Further, there is not even a single complaint by any witness that the applicant has indulged in tampering of witnesses. ( 24 ) THE applicant, it is stated, is a well educated young man aged 27 years and he does not have any objectionable antecedents/criminal past records. It is true that the grant of bail to the applicant should not hamper the smooth trial of the case and that could be ensured by hanging around the bail order appropriate conditions to ensure public safety and public justice which are central to the whole scheme of Bail law. Therefore, it would not be proper and in the interest of justice to keep the applicant in jail. The only evidence of Reginald Jeremiah (PW-85) regarding criminal conspiracy attributed to the applicant is suspicious and tenuous and the same stands contradicted by the evidence of the witnesses rohit Prasad (PW-126) and Vijay Jain (PW-73 ). Furthermore, there is no corroboration to the testimony of Reginald Jeremiah (PW-85 ). In the circumstances, i am of the considered opinion that the applicant deserves to be released on bail. ( 25 ) IN the result and for the foregoing reasons, this application is allowed and the applicant, namely, Amit Jogi is directed to be released on bail forthwith on his executing a bond in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two sureties of the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court on the following conditions : (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial Court on the dates fixed for hearing. (iii) The applicant shall report himself before the Station House Officer of the Police station under whose territorial jurisdiction he resides ordinarily on 15th day of every month between 10. 00 a. m. and 11. 00 a. m. (iv) The applicant shall deposit his passport if it is in currency with the learned trial court before his release from jail. Before parting with this case, I make it clear that whatever has been observed in this order was only for the purpose of considering the prayer of the applicant for bail, and the observations made in this order shall not in any way or manner influence or weigh with the learned trial Judge while finally deciding the case. Application allowed. Before parting with this case, I make it clear that whatever has been observed in this order was only for the purpose of considering the prayer of the applicant for bail, and the observations made in this order shall not in any way or manner influence or weigh with the learned trial Judge while finally deciding the case. Application allowed. --- *** --- .