undergone more than 3 years of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted. As such, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. Though the trial is of the year, 2021 and in view of the fact that a period of almost 2 years has rolled by only 5 prosecution witnesses of fact have been examined up to this stage. Since the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution stand crystallized, therefore, there does not exist any justification to prolong the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial particularly when the first informant who is an eye witness of the occurrence has not supported the FIR. To buttress his submission, he has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5). On the above premise, he submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
