Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497(1),497(2)

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,324,148,149

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-iamd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Bail, grant of---Statutory delay in conclusion of trial--Further inquiry---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Record showed that the delay in conclusion of the trial was attributed to the strikes observed by the lawyers and one of the accused who although had already been allowed bail but he was confined in some other case and he was not being produced by the police despite repeated orders by the Trial Court---Not a single stance was attributed to the petitioner which caused delay in proceeding with the trial---Counsel for the petitioner was continuously appearing before the Court---Petitioner was behind the bars for the last more than two years as he was arrested in the case on 26.02.2022 and since then he was in continuous incarceration---Nothing was available on record that the petitioner or any other person acting on his behalf had caused the delay in conclusion of the trial---Even otherwise, the interim order sheet of the trial Court annexed with the petition and the report submitted by the trial Court showed that the trial was still at initial stage and till date the accused had not been formally indicted---So, under clause (a) to 3rd proviso of subsection (1) of S.497, Cr.P.C., petitioner earned the statutory right to be released on post-arrest bail as the delay was not attributed to the petitioner---Even otherwise, it was noticed that a CCTV footage was part of the record which factum had been confirmed by the Investigating Officer, who apprised that in CCTV footage three accused persons including the petitioner were visible while coming to the crime scene but only one person was carrying the firearm weapon whereas, the petitioner and his co-accused were not armed with any weapon---During the course of investigation, nothing incriminating had been recovered from possession of petitioner---Other co-accused had already been allowed postarrest bail by the Court of first instance---So, viewing the facts of the…