Facts
The applicant, Gulab, sought regular bail in a case arising from FIR No. 400/2020 (PS Shahbad Dairy) involving charges of murder and attempted murder.
Source reference: no citationAccording to the prosecution, on the night of the incident, the applicant and co-accused Amit apprehended the victim, Abhishek, and the complainant.
Source reference: p. 2, para 4The applicant, armed with a country-made pistol, allegedly shot Abhishek dead and subsequently shot the complainant in the shoulder when he attempted to flee.
Source reference: p. 2, para 4The applicant has been in custody for approximately five and a half years.
Source reference: p. 3, para 5He argued for bail on the grounds of parity with a co-accused (Ajay) and the allegedly slow pace of the trial.
Source reference: p. 2, para 5Issues
Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of the trial.
Source reference: p. 3, para 7-8Whether the gravity of the offence and potential threat to witnesses outweigh the applicant's right to bail.
Source reference: p. 3, para 6 & 9Law Applied
The court considered Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alongside Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act.
Source reference: p. 1, para 1The court applied the principle that while the period of detention is a factor, the gravity of the offence—specifically where the punishment can extend to death—and the conduct of the accused in potentially delaying the trial or threatening witnesses are paramount considerations in bail jurisprudence.
Source reference: p. 3, para 6-7Reasoning
The court rejected the applicant's contention regarding a "slow trial," noting that the applicant himself had clogged the proceedings by filing multiple applications, including jail transfer requests and a parallel interim bail application in the trial court.
Source reference: p. 3, para 7The court observed that the trial was being conducted diligently and the delay was not attributable to the State.
Source reference: p. 3, para 7Regarding the merits, the court emphasized the "severity of the offence" and the "gravity of the offence" where one person was killed and another injured by gunfire.
Source reference: p. 3, para 6 & 9Furthermore, the court took note of the State’s apprehension that the applicant might threaten the injured eyewitness who is yet to be examined, and the Nominal Rolls which indicated serious charges against the applicant even while in jail.
Source reference: p. 3, para 6Holding
The court held that this was not a fit case for the grant of bail due to the extreme gravity of the offences (shooting two individuals) and the risk posed to witnesses.
The court dismissed the bail application and the accompanying CRL.M.(BAIL) 653/2024.
Source reference: p. 4, para 9The Jail Superintendent was directed to communicate this order to the applicant.
Source reference: p. 4, para 10Original Court PDF
Gulab v. State BAIL APPLN. 1366/2024 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 653/2024
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in