JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners, who are facing trial for offences under Sections 302/382/201/34 RPC before the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (‘the trial Court’ for short), have moved this Court for grant of bail in terms of Section 439 of Cr.PC. 2. The first ground that has been urged by the petitioners is that they have been arrested in the month of May, 2017 and since then, they have been in custody without there being any possibility of completion of trial in near future. It has been contended that only 04 out of 13 prosecution witnesses cited in the challan, have been examined so far and having regarding to the pace at which the trial is going on, it would take another decade for the prosecution to complete the evidence. Therefore, on the ground of long incarceration of the petitioners, they are entitled to grant of bail as the right to speedy trial has been recognized as a fundamental right which is being violated in the case of the petitioners. The other ground that has been raised by the petitioners is that the prosecution witnesses, who have been examined so far, have not supported the prosecution case and even otherwise, the whole case of prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence and there is a lot of suspicion surrounding the circumstances, on the basis of which, the petitioners have been implicated in the case. Thus, even on merits, the petitioners are entitled to bail. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused the record of the case including the trial Court record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while making his submissions, has reiterated the grounds urged in the petition. According to the learned counsel, the delay in completion of trial is solely attributable to the prosecution and the petitioners cannot be made to suffer because of the delay in trial. The learned counsel has also referred to the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded so far and pointed out certain portions of these statements, which, according to him, amount to contradictions and infirmities in the prosecution case. On the basis of this, it has been contended that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are not involved in the alleged crime thereby entitling them to grant of bail. 5. On the basis of this, it has been contended that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are not involved in the alleged crime thereby entitling them to grant of bail. 5. Learned Dy.AG, on the other hand, has contended that there has been no delay in progress of the trial and that the prosecution has been diligent in producing the witnesses before the trial Court, but because of intervention of Covid-19 pandemic for about two and a half year, it was not possible for the prosecution to either produce the accused before the trial Court or to ensure presence of the witnesses before the said Court. He has contended that the intervention of Covid-19 pandemic can, by no means, be termed as a reason attributable to the prosecution. Therefore, the petitioners cannot seek bail on the ground of long incarceration. It has been further contended that only four prosecution witnesses have been examined and most of the material witnesses in the challan are yet to be examined. Therefore, it cannot be stated that there are grounds for believing that the petitioners are not involved in the alleged crime. 6. Before coming to the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, let me give a brief background of the prosecution case. 7. It appears that, on the basis of a written report filed by PW Kala Ram, the father of the deceased on 18.04.2017, FIR No. 51/20174 for offences under Sections 302/382/201/34 was registered. In the said report, it was alleged that on 17.04.2017, Sh. Sunil Kumar, son of the informant had gone out of his house in connection with his business, but he did not return. On 15.05.2017, it was learnt by the informant that petitioners/accused, who were having previous enmity with his son, on account of a dispute relating to transaction between the parties and were extending threats to him, kidnapped him on 17.04.2017, where-after, he was killed by some sharp edged weapons and his dead body was concealed. 8. During investigation of the case, the statements of witnesses under Sections 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC were recorded. 8. During investigation of the case, the statements of witnesses under Sections 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC were recorded. On the basis of disclosure statements made by the petitioners, bones pertaining to the deceased (36 in number), hairs and clothes of the deceased, blood stained black pant with belt, Adhaar card, two photographs, blood stained black underwear, blood stained upper T-Shirt, blood stained undershirt and blood stained handkerchief were recovered, where-after, they were sealed and sent to FSL for chemical analysis. On the basis of disclosure statement of petitioner Reyaz Ahmed, broken mobile phone with sim card of the deceased was recovered. The police also recovered the weapon of offence ‘knife’ on the basis of disclosure made by the petitioner Mushtaq Ahmed. After conducting investigation, the Investigating Agency concluded that the petitioners, who were having previous enmity with the deceased, hatched a criminal conspiracy, in pursuance whereof, the deceased was kidnapped, where-after, he was done to death. It was also found that the dead body of the deceased was destroyed by the petitioners. Accordingly, charge-sheet for offences under sections 302/382/201/34 was presented before the trial Court. 9. Before discussing merits of the grounds urged by the petitioners for grant of bail in their favour in the light of the facts narrated hereinbefore, it is necessary to notice the legal position relating to grant of bail in heinous offences like murder. 10. The consistent view of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, is that the matters to be considered in a bail application for grant of bail are as follows: 1. Whether there is a, prima facie, reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; 2. Nature and gravity of the charge; 3. Severity of punishment in the event of conviction; 4. Danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; 5. Character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused; 6. Likelihood of the offence being repeated; 7. Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; 8. Danger of course of justice being thwarted by grant of bail; 11. So far as the instant case is concerned, petitioners are facing the charge of murder which is punishable with death sentence or imprisonment for life. Likelihood of the offence being repeated; 7. Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; 8. Danger of course of justice being thwarted by grant of bail; 11. So far as the instant case is concerned, petitioners are facing the charge of murder which is punishable with death sentence or imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and another, (2004) 7 SCC 528 , while laying down the guidelines for grant or refusal of bail in serious offences like murder, has observed as under: "11.The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are, (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge; (See Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and others and Puran Vs. Rambilas and another. 12. In regard to cases where earlier bail applications have been rejected there is a further onus on the court to consider the subsequent application for grant of bail by noticing the grounds on which earlier bail applications have been rejected and after such consideration if the court is of the opinion that bail has to be granted then the said court will have to give specific reasons why in spite of such earlier rejection the subsequent application for bail should be granted.(See Ram Govind Upadhyay, supra)” 12. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has also observed that the conditions laid down in Section 437(1)(i) of Cr. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has also observed that the conditions laid down in Section 437(1)(i) of Cr. P. C are sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code, meaning thereby that in a case where a person is alleged to be involved in an offence punishable with death sentence or imprisonment for life, he cannot be released on bail if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of such an offence. So the petitioners in the instant case, in order to succeed in making out a case for grant of bail in their favour on merits, have to satisfy this Court that on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution and the evidence that is proposed to be led by the prosecution, there is absence of reasonable grounds for believing that they have have committed the offence. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court through the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded before the trial court. He has particularly referred to the statements of PWs Kuldeep Kumar, Kala Ram and Balwant Singh. According to the learned counsel, these are the star witnesses of the prosecution and there are contradictions on vital aspects of the case in the statements of these witnesses. It has been contended that PW Kuldeep Kumar, who is a witness to the circumstance relating to last seen, has denied having seen the deceased in the company of the petitioners. Similar, argument has been made in the case of witness PW Balwant Singh. It has been further contended that PW Kala Ram, the father of the deceased, has made contradictory statements as regards as the disclosure statements made by the petitioners. 14. Before dealing with the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the petitioners, we need to be clear as regards scope of this Court in appreciating and examining the evidence led by the prosecution at this stage of the proceedings. The Supreme Court in the case of State of UP through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 , while dealing with this aspect of the case has observed that a detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question of bail, to ensure that there is no pre-judging and no prejudice. The Supreme Court in the case of State of UP through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 , while dealing with this aspect of the case has observed that a detailed examination of the evidence is to be avoided while considering the question of bail, to ensure that there is no pre-judging and no prejudice. The Court further observed that a brief examination to be satisfied about the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case is necessary. Keeping these principles in view, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners on merits of this application is required to be tested. 15. The statements of prosecution witnesses, which have been referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners, reveal that, prima facie, they have supported the prosecution case, particularly in their examination-in-chief. There may be some contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements made during cross-examination, but it is not open to this Court to minutely examine and analyze their statements at the time of deciding the bail application of the petitioners. It is not a case where these witnesses have turned hostile or they have stated something which is completely contrary to what the prosecution has alleged in the charge-sheet. A meticulous or detailed examination of the statements of the prosecution witnesses may or may not bring out inconsistencies and contradictions on vital aspects of the case, but this is not the stage for this Court to undertake such an exercise as the same would amount to prejudging merits of the case. In addition to this, the statements of most of the material witnesses relating to circumstances on which the prosecution has based its case, are yet to be recorded. The statements of these material witnesses recorded during investigation of the case, prima facie, show the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of alleged crime. Therefore, there is absolutely no scope for this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail, on merits. 16. That takes us to the second ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioners which relates to long incarceration of the petitioners and non-completion of prosecution evidence. In, this regard, a perusal of the trial Court record would show that the charge-sheet was presented before the Court of Special Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu on 12.07.2017 and it was committed to the trial Court on 22.07.2017. In, this regard, a perusal of the trial Court record would show that the charge-sheet was presented before the Court of Special Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu on 12.07.2017 and it was committed to the trial Court on 22.07.2017. The trial Court record would reveal that before the said Court, two accused, namely Liakat Ali and Reyaz Ahmed moved applications for declaring them juvenile. The learned trial Court conducted an enquiry into the juvenility of the aforesaid accused during which the statements of the witnesses were recorded, the afore-named two accused were subjected to medical examination by the Medical Board, where-after the statements of members of the Medical Board were also recorded by the trial Court and ultimately, the enquiry concluded, where-after, in terms of order dated 02.11.2020, the trial Court declined their plea of their juvenility. It is only thereafter that trial Court proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners after hearing the parties on 03.03.2021. 17. The record of the trial Court also shows that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the proceedings in the case could not be expedited as neither the petitioners/accused could be produced before the Court, nor the presence of the witnesses could be ensured before the Court. Thus, on account of Covid-19 pandemic and the consequent restrictions in physical hearing of the cases, there has been delay in progress of the trial. This is an eventuality beyond the control of everybody. Therefore, the delay cannot be attributed either to the trial Court or to the prosecution. After covid-19 pandemic came to an end, the prosecution has been producing the witnesses. Although on some occasions, the witnesses could not be examined either because the Presiding Officer was not available or because the learned counsel for the defence was not available, yet, on most of the occasions, the prosecution has produced the witnesses and they have been examined by the trial Court. PW Kala Ram, father of the deceased, has been examined by the trial Court on four dates and this has also contributed to the delay in progress of the trial. The same can, in no way, be attributed o the prosecution. 18. In view of the aforesaid circumstances emanating from the record of the trial Court, it cannot be stated that the delay in progress of the trial has occasioned because of the prosecution. The same can, in no way, be attributed o the prosecution. 18. In view of the aforesaid circumstances emanating from the record of the trial Court, it cannot be stated that the delay in progress of the trial has occasioned because of the prosecution. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra) has clearly laid down that in a case where gravity of offence alleged against an accused is severe, the bail cannot be granted only on the ground of long incarceration. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioners to apply afresh after change of circumstances.