More Than 4 Years Without Trial, Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Murder Accused
Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to a woman who had been in judicial custody for over four years without the conclusion of her trial. The Court held that keeping the applicant in custody serves no meaningful purpose, especially when the chances of the trial getting concluded in the near future are very less.Justice Virender Singh: “It stated that Considering the fact that the...
Himachal Pradesh High Court granted bail to a woman who had been in judicial custody for over four years without the conclusion of her trial. The Court held that keeping the applicant in custody serves no meaningful purpose, especially when the chances of the trial getting concluded in the near future are very less.
Justice Virender Singh: “It stated that Considering the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody, since long, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in the judicial custody, that too, for indefinite period”.
Background Facts:
The case arose from an information provided by the village head of Bhagwania village, who informed the police about a dead body found near a cow shelter. The body was found inside a jute sack, with a black cloth tied around the neck and other visible injuries. Pursuant to which, the police registered an FIR based on the information given by the village head.
Subsequently, the police conducted an investigation to identify the body, and two villagers identified it as that of a 21-year-old male. Upon examining the call records of the deceased, it was revealed that he had repeatedly contacted a particular number, which belonged to Homdei, the applicant in this case.
It was discovered that the deceased had allegedly been harassing the applicant through persistent phone calls. Thereafter, when the applicant's husband got to know about this he decided to take revenge from the deceased. According to the prosecution, the applicant and her husband, lived in a residential quarter, where the husband discussed a plan to kill the deceased with the owner of the room.
Later, when the husband found the deceased in the room with his wife, he, along with the room owner, allegedly beat the deceased to death using a wooden stick. Subsequently, all three individuals were arrested based on this sequence of events.
According to the police, out of a total of 51 prosecution witnesses, only 16 had been examined so far. The remaining 31 witnesses were yet to be examined.
Being aggrieved by the delay in trial process, the applicant filed a bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking release during the pendency of the trial.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The applicant contended that she had been falsely implicated and that there was no direct or substantial evidence linking her to the crime. She further stated that she had been in custody since 2021 and the trial had yet not been completed.
Also, that out of total 51 prosecution witnesses only 16 have been examined and she pleaded that inordinate delay, in conclusion of the trial, violates her fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
She also contended that her co-accused (her husband) was granted bail by the Court in 2024 and, therefore, she should also be released on similar grounds.
Findings:
The court observed that the applicant had been in judicial custody for about 4 years and 2 months and in near future, chances of conclusion of trial, against the applicant, were not so bright as there were still 31 witnesses to be examined.
The Court further remarked that “considering the fact that the applicant has been in judicial custody for a long time, this court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in the judicial custody, that too, for an indefinite period”.
In Union of India v/s K.A. Najeeb, supreme court held that “when a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge accused on bail”.
In this case, the court held that the chances of conclusion of trial, against the applicant, in near future, are not bright, as such, keeping the applicant in judicial custody, would be nothing, but, pre-trial punishment, which is prohibited under the law and the applicant is presumed to be innocent, until proven guilty.
The Court further stated that the applicant is also entitled for bail on the basis of parity, as her co-accused, her husband, has already been released on bail.
Thus, the Court allowed the bail application and imposed strict conditions on the applicant to be available for trial whenever required and directed her to furnish personal bonds along with sureties.
Case Name: Hom Dei @Shallu v/s State of H.P.
Case No.: CrMP(M) No.814 of 2025
Date of Decision: 09.05.2025
For the applicant : Mr. Ranveer Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. Ritesh Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. H.S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General.