JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking bail under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) in FIR No. 273 of 2014, dated 26.11.2014, registered in Police Station Baddi, Police District Baddi, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 302, 452 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). 2. Status report stands filed and record was also made available. 3. As per status report, on 26.11.2024, an anonymous information was received in Police Station that Gurnam Singh (co-accused) and Rajinder Kumar @ Kala (petitioner-accused) in Village Malpur, have made murderous attack on some guest. Whereupon, police party rushed to Village Malpur, where complainant Kunwar Pal made statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. stating therein that Shashi, who is brother-in-law (Devar) of his one daughter and had come to leave his another daughter Jai Lalita from Chandigarh to Village Malpur, was attending on the mobile phone in the courtyard at about 7.30 p.m. At that time, Gurnam Singh, neighbour started abusing and beating Shashi with kicks and fist blows. Shashi, to save him, ran to room of complainant and complainant and his son Nanak tried to save Shashi, whereupon, Gurnam Singh called Rajinder @ Kala (petitioner) who came on the spot with Danda and Gurnam Singh was having a big Dagger/Gupti and they entered the room of complainant. Rajinder @ Kala-petitioner started beating Shashi with Danda. Whereas, Gurnam Singh stabbed in the stomach of Shashi, whereupon, Shashi fell on the floor unconscious. The incident was witnessed by neighbour tenants Puran Singh, Dharam Pal and Narender etc. Further that, when complainant and his son Nanak tried to save Shashi, Gurnam Singh beat them with kicks and fist blows and slaps and Gurnam Singh put his Dagger on neck of the complainant with threat to kill him also and, after causing injuries to Shashi and they ran from the spot. Shashi, in unconscious condition, was taken to Sidhhant Hospital, Baddi, on Scooter with the help of son of complainant Nanak and one Narender Son of Sh. Bhim. Shashi was declared brought dead. 4. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR was registered. Investigation was completed. During investigation, Gurnam Singh and Rajinder @ Kala-petitioner were arrested on 01.12.2014, at about 5.00 p.m. in forest of Kanduwala. After remaining in police custody both of them were sent in judicial custody. Bhim. Shashi was declared brought dead. 4. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR was registered. Investigation was completed. During investigation, Gurnam Singh and Rajinder @ Kala-petitioner were arrested on 01.12.2014, at about 5.00 p.m. in forest of Kanduwala. After remaining in police custody both of them were sent in judicial custody. Since then, petitioner is in judicial custody. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if prosecution case is considered to be true, then also there is no meeting of minds to hatch conspiracy by Gurnam Singh and Rajinder Kumar @ Kala-petitioner to kill Shashi and, therefore, for any act done by co-accused leading to death of Shashi, cannot be made basis to incarcerate the petitioner as an accused under Section 302 IPC. According to him, as per prosecution, Rajinder Kumar @ Kala-petitioner was called on the spot by Gurnam Singh, who was already present there with Dagger which fact was not in the knowledge of Rajinder Kumar @ Kala-petitioner, who had come alongwith Danda and it is not case of the prosecution that both accused consulted and conspired with each other and then attacked Shashi, but case of the prosecution is that though Rajinder Kumar @ Kala-petitioner was called by Gurnam Singh and he rushed to the spot and went in the room alongwith Gurnam Singh and beat deceased with Danda, and by that time, Gurnam Singh stabbed Shashi and, therefore, it has been contended that petitioner deserves to be considered differently than Gurnam Singh. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that though petitioner came on the spot alongwith Danda, but Dagger in the hand of Gurnam Singh was clearly visible to all, including Rajinder Kumar @ Kala-petitioner and to accompany a person having Daggger in his hand would definitely means participation by Rajinder Kumar @ Kala-petitioner in the act of Gurnam Singh, as it is a matter of common knowledge that person having a big Dagger in his hand would definitely cause murder of victim and in such eventuality, for joining Gurnam Singh, Rajinder Kumar @ Kala-petitioner is also liable to be punished under Section 302 IPC. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is behind the bars since last more than 8 years and challan in present case has been presented on 06.02.2015 and, as on date, out of 32 witnesses only 20 witnesses have been examined and 12 witnesses are yet to be examined. It has further been submitted that there is no mark of injuries on the body of deceased, caused by Danda, rather as per opinion of Doctors, deceased Shashi died on account of stab injury caused by Gurnam Singh with Dagger. It has further been submitted that 8 years long detention as an undertrial prisoner is too long period which is in conflict with Fundamental Right to life, which includes personal liberty and the petitioner, thus, on this ground also, is entitled for bail. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to substantiate claim of the petitioner to enlarge him on bail has relied upon Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 , especially referring paragraph 15 thereof, which reads as under: “15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisioners) vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731 , it was held that under-trials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.” 9. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the petitioner on pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 , especially paragraphs 49 and 50 thereof, which read as under: “49. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the petitioner on pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 , especially paragraphs 49 and 50 thereof, which read as under: “49. Sub-Section (1) mandates courts to continue the proceedings on a day-to-day basis till the completion of the evidence. Therefore, once a trial starts, it should reach the logical end. Various directions have been issued by this Court not to give unnecessary adjournments resulting in the witnesses being won over. However, the noncompliance of Section 309 continues with gay abandon. Perhaps courts alone cannot be faulted as there are multiple reasons that lead to such adjournments. Though the section makes adjournments and that too not for a longer time period as an exception, they become the norm. We are touching upon this provision only to show that any delay on the part of the court or the prosecution would certainly violate Article 21. This is more so when the accused person is under incarceration. This provision must be applied inuring to the benefit of the accused while considering the application for bail. Whatever may be the nature of the offence, a prolonged trial, appeal or a revision against an accused or a convict under custody or incarceration, would be violative of Article 21. While the courts will have to endeavour to complete at least the recording of the evidence of the private witnesses, as indicated by this Court on quite a few occasions, they shall make sure that the accused does not suffer for the delay occasioned due to no fault of his own. 50. Sub-Section (2) has to be read along with sub-section (1). The proviso to sub-section (2) restricts the period of remand to a maximum of 15 days at a time. The second proviso prohibits an adjournment when the witnesses are in attendance except for special reasons, which are to be recorded. Certain reasons for seeking adjournment are held to be permissible. One must read this provision from the point of view of the dispensation of justice. After all, right to a fair and speedy trial is yet another facet of Article 21. Certain reasons for seeking adjournment are held to be permissible. One must read this provision from the point of view of the dispensation of justice. After all, right to a fair and speedy trial is yet another facet of Article 21. Therefore, while it is expected of the court to comply with Section 309 of the Code to the extent possible, an unexplained, avoidable and prolonged delay in concluding a trial, appeal or revision would certainly be a factor for the consideration of bail. This we hold so notwithstanding the beneficial provision under Section 436A of the Code which stands on a different footing.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred order of the Supreme Court dated 18.05.2022, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1627 of 2022, titled as Indrani Pratim Mukerjea vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, whereby petitioner, an accused in a case under Section 302 IPC, undergoing custody for 6½ years, was enlarged on bail for her long incarceration on the ground that there was no possibility of completing the trial soon. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred order dated 18.11.2022, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 1744 of 2022, titled as Tara Singh vs. Stae of Himahal Pradesh, wherein a person accused of Dacoity and murder has been enlarged on bail after detention as undertrial prisoner for 6½ years coupled with fact that despite passing of order in the bail application filed by the accused previously to expedite the trial, extension of time was sought by the Trial Court to complete the trial and out of 37 witnesses only 18 witnesses had been examined. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in present case also, petitioner had approached this Court by filing Cr. M.P. (M) No. 375 of 2021, which was dismissed as withdrawn, seeking liberty to file an appropriate application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to expedite the trial. Thereafter, petitioner again approached this Court by filing Cr. M.P. (M) No. 787 of 2022, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.05.2022 after filing fresh status report and stating therein that statements of 20 witnesses have been recorded and 12 witnesses were left to be examined and next date for recording evidence has been fixed as 21.07.2022. Thereafter, petitioner again approached this Court by filing Cr. M.P. (M) No. 787 of 2022, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.05.2022 after filing fresh status report and stating therein that statements of 20 witnesses have been recorded and 12 witnesses were left to be examined and next date for recording evidence has been fixed as 21.07.2022. In that petition, Trial Court was directed to complete the evidence as early as possible so as to conclude the trial expeditiously particularly keeping in view detention period of accused person. 13. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as on date also, only 20 witnesses have been examined and 12 witnesses are yet to be examined and trial has not progressed further and, therefore, it has been contended that at this stage petitioner is entitled for bail. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred pronouncement of Supreme Court in, Criminal Appeal No. 1525 of 2021, titled as Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem Kumar Bhattacharya vs. National Investigating Agency, for advancing arguments that deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and while deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, but period of deprivation of pending trial cannot be unduly long. 15. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering entire facts and circumstances brought before me and taking into consideration the factors and parameters required to be considered at the time of considering bail application, as propounded by the Courts including the Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that, at this stage, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 16. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two local sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Sessions Judge, upon such further conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the trial Court, including the conditions enumerated hereinafter, so as to assure presence of petitioner/accused at the time of trial: (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other Investigating Agency or Court in the present case as and when required. (ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. He shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) that the petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial. (iv) that the petitioner shall not commit the offence similar to the offence to which he is accused or suspected. (v) that the petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner. (vi) that the petitioner shall not jump over the bail. (vii) that in case petitioner indulges in repetition of similar offences then, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled on taking appropriate steps by prosecution. (viii) that the petitioner shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission. (ix) that the petitioner shall inform the Police/Court his contact number and shall keep on informing about change in address and contact number, if any, in future. 17. It will be open to the prosecution to apply for imposing and/or to the trial Court to impose any other condition on the petitioner as deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and thereupon, it will also be open to the trial Court to impose any other or further condition on the petitioner as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice. 18. In case the petitioner violates any condition imposed upon him, his bail shall be liable to be cancelled. In such eventuality, prosecution may approach the competent Court of law for cancellation of bail, in accordance with law. 19. Trial Court is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide Communication No. HHC/VIG/Misc. Instructions/93-IV-7139 dated 18.03.2013. 20. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore, shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application. 21. Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. 22. Copy dasti. 23. Instructions/93-IV-7139 dated 18.03.2013. 20. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore, shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application. 21. Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. 22. Copy dasti. 23. Petitioner is permitted to produce/use copy of this order, downloaded from the web-page of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, before the trial Court/Sessions Judge, and the said Court shall not insist for production of a certified copy but if required, may verify it from Website of the High Court.