ALOK SINGH, J. - (1.) PRESENT application is moved seeking regular bail in connection with Sunderpahari P.S. Case No. 29 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 898 of 2012 registered under Sections 302/ 201/ 120B/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) Mr. Deo, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that after the investigation, police did not find involvement of the applicant in the incident. Police has submitted charge -sheet against the other co -accused. However, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner without there being any application for the side of the complainant or the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. Mr. Deo has further argued that a person can be summoned as an additional accused if trial court from the evidence produced before the trial court finds involvement of person to be added as additional accused. Mr. Deo further stated that petitioner is in judicial custody since 20th June 2012 and his petition for quashing of the order summoning the accused is pending before this Court. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Md. Raneef reported in : (2011) 1 SCC 784. Apex court in the case cited by Mr. Deo has observed as under: 15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody.... Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that let petitioner be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of Sri Sunil Dutta Dwiwedi, Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Godda in connection with Sunderpahari P.S. Case No. 29 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 898 of 2012.;