(1.) THE Petitioner is facing trial in case FIR No.356/2007 under Section 120B read with Section 302 IPC, PS Hauz Qazi pending before the Court of Learned Addl. Session Judge -02 (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.
(2.) AFTER dismissal of the bail application by learned Addl. Session Judge, Delhi vide order dated 19.05.2014, the Petitioner has again approached this Court for seeking bail in the above noted case on the ground that the Petitioner had been in custody for the last about seven years and material witnesses in the case have already been examined. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the testimony of material witnesses placed on record would reveal that the Petitioner, who had been booked for conspiracy to commit murder, cannot be convicted on the basis of said material. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that initially the bail granted to the Petitioner by this Court was cancelled by Supreme Court but that was before the stage of framing of charge. Now the material witnesses have been examined. The health condition of the Petitioner is not good and he requires continuous medical treatment. Further, the co -accused Ashok Jain and Rishi Pal have already been enlarged on bail on 30.04.2013 and on parity, the Petitioner also deserves to be released on bail. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has deep roots in the society and he has never abused the liberty whenever he was released on interim bail. Learned counsel has further submitted that despite directions by this Court for speedy trial, as on date twenty -three witnesses are yet to be examined, which is likely to take long time and this in itself is a ground to enlarge the Petitioner on bail. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on Dr.Mrs.Nupur Talwar v. CBI in Special Leave to Appeal (Cri). No. 4738/2012 decided on 13.08.2012, Nand Lal v. State of Delhi, 1994 (2) RCR (Cri) 345, Pankaj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Cri) 219, and Manoj Kumar v. CBI, 2005 (1) RCR (Cri) 265 in support of his contentions.
(3.) I have considered the rival contentions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned APP for the State and also perused the reported decisions cited by learned counsel for the Petitioner.