***

MANISHA BATRA, J. –

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging the order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in case arising out of FIR No.8 dated 06.01.2024 registered under Sections 302, 396, 323, 406, 307, 148, 149 of IPC and Section 3(1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act (for short “SC/ST Act”) at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur whereby an application for grant of regular bail as filed by the appellant had been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by complainant Kashmiri Lal alleging that on 05.01.2024, a Nagar Kirtan had passed through his village. A langar of milk was being arranged for the congregation at the welding shop of Gurmeet Singh, a co-villager. The complainant along with his sons Sahil and Gaurav was serving milk to the congregation, when at about 08-8:15 PM, the appellant armed with rod along with the co-accused reached there in a tractor trolley. They were also armed with weapons. Accused Ashish @ Ashu made an exhortation that Sahil (son of the complainant) should be taught a lesson for raising voice against them and then he opened an assault by striking blows with a baseball bat on the head of Sahil. Accused Abhishek @ Abhi and Ladi also assaulted the victim with their rods and sticks. The complainant rushed for the rescue of his son and was also assaulted with a baseball bat by accused Amritpal. Navdeep Singh @ Deepu struck blows with stick on his person. Brother of the complainant, namely Malkit Lal, was also assaulted by the accused persons. Clamour raised by them attracted other persons, who rushed for their rescue and then the assailants fled away on their tractor trolley.

3. As per the further allegations, injured Sahil was rushed to the hospital. However, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him and died. While alleging that accused Ashu was having a grudge against his son on account of some previous altercation and had committed his murder, the complainant prayed for taking action in the matter. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. Offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act was added as the victim belonged to SC community. Accused Paramjit Singh @ Pamma was arrested on 06.01.2024. On the basis of the supplementary statement of the complainant, some other persons were also nominated as accused and were arrested. The appellant was arrested on 13.01.2024. Presently, the appellant and the co-accused is facing trial for commission      of aforementioned offences. The appellant had moved an application for grant of regular bail before the learned trial Court but the same had been dismissed by passing the impugned order dated 04.10.2024.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the same, the learned trial Court did not consider the fact that no injury whatsoever on the person of the deceased had been attributed to him and the only injury, which was attributed to him, is a rod blow on the shoulder of injured Malkit Singh which has been opined to be simple in nature. He had no role to play in the commission of subject offences. He is in custody since long. The trial will take considerable time to conclude as only 2 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. His further detention would not serve any useful purpose. With these broad submissions, it is urged that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, the appeal deserves to be accepted and the appellant deserves to be given benefit of regular bail.

5. Written response has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has argued that there are serious and specific allegations against the appellant, who formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused and it was in prosecution of common object of that unlawful assembly that the injuries were caused to deceased/victim Sahil as well as to the complainant and his brother Malkit Lal. The injuries so sustained by victim Sahil proved fatal and resulted into his instantaneous death. The allegations prima facie reveal that the appellant had played active participation in the incident. The death of the victim had occurred due to the impact of the injury sustained by him. The material witnesses are yet to be examined. There are chances of the appellant’s intimidating them or absconding, if extended benefit of bail. Hence, it is urged that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

7. The appellant has been linked to the acts attributed with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, as per which, for an act committed by one member of an unlawful assembly, the other member of that assembly is vicariously liable, if it is established that he knew beforehand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object, and such knowledge may reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms, or behaviour at or before the scene of action. In the instant case, the appellant is alleged to have reached the spot being accompanied by the co-accused in a tractor-trolley and is further alleged to have opened an attack upon the victim Sahil (son of the complainant), the complainant, as well as his brother Malkit Singh. However, the fatal/grievous injury on the person of the victim Sahil has not been attributed to the appellant. It is only the simple injury on the shoulder/person of Malkit Singh that has been attributed to him.

8. Though the allegations make out a prima facie case against the appellant, however, he has been in custody for a period of about 2 years and 7 months. The chances of conclusion of trial in the near future are bleak, as only 2 out of 34 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. It is well settled that deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not in consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs The State of Maharashtra and another 2024(9) SCC 813, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that howsoever, serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial. Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. It was also observed that if the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed, is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. It is also well-settled that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial and the proper test to be applied is in the solution of the question is whether the bail should be granted or refused or whether it is probable that the party will appear to take its trial and it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Taking into consideration the period spent by the appellant in custody, the limited role ascribed to him, the fact that trial is not likely to be conclude shortly and the facts and circumstance peculiar to this case, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

9. It is made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present appeal and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

10. Since the main appeal has been allowed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.

Appeal allowed.

********