One-and-a-half years to reach the lab: HC orders action over FSL delay in attempt-to-murder case
The Bench observed that the case property was yet to be examined by the laboratory even though the trial had reached its fag end
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Ludhiana Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) to look into a delay of more than one-and-a-half years in sending case property to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and take appropriate disciplinary action against the erring officials. The Bench observed that the case property was yet to be examined by the laboratory even though the trial had reached its fag end.
The direction came as Justice Surya Partap Singh allowed a petition seeking bail in a case arising out of an FIR registered for attempt to murder under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the provisions of the Arms Act at Dakha police station in Ludhiana district.
Expressing concern over the delay, Justice Surya Partap Singh observed: “Before parting ways with this order, it shall not be out of place to mention here that as per record, the case property has been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory on June 16, 2026, i.e. after a delay of more than one-and-a-half year from the date of incident. What to say of investigation, even the trial has reached at fag end and the case property is yet to be examined by FSL. Thus, the Senior Superintendent of Police Ludhiana is hereby directed to look into the matter and take appropriate disciplinary action against the erring official(s).”
The matter was placed before Justice Surya Partap Singh after the petitioner filed second bail petition. The first petition, the court noted, had not been decided on merits. According to the prosecution, the FIR was registered after the complaint alleged that he was present at his grocery shop on November 15, 2024, at about 7 pm, when the petitioner-accused came and hurled abuses at him and his wife. When the complainant objected to the alleged behaviour, the petitioner allegedly took out a revolver from the waistband of his trouser and fired two gunshots. One shot allegedly hit the complainant on his right shoulder, while the other struck his wife in the chest.
Seeking bail, counsel for the petitioner contended that he had clean antecedents and had already remained in custody for more than one year and eight months. It was further argued that the investigation had been completed, both injured persons had already been discharged from hospital and the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future.
Opposing the plea, the State submitted that the petitioner had fired two gunshots with the intention to kill the complainant and his wife, both of whom had suffered gunshot injuries. It was further argued that all the witnesses had already been examined and had supported the prosecution case, while the matter was awaiting the FSL report.
While allowing the petition, the court took into account that the first bail petition had not been decided on merits; the petitioner had remained in custody for more than one year and eight months; he had clean antecedents; the injured had already been discharged from hospital; all the witnesses had been examined; the trial was held up because of delay in the FSL report; nothing remained to be recovered from the petitioner; his continued detention in judicial lock-up was not likely to serve any purpose; and there was nothing on record to indicate that, if released on bail, he would tamper with the evidence, influence witnesses or fail to participate or cooperate in the trial.
Emphasising the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial, Justice Surya Partap Singh observed: “This Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as mandated by the Apex Court.”
Allowing the petition, the court concluded: “If the cumulative effect of all the factors involved in the instant case is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of bail, and that the present petition deserves to be allowed.” The court clarified that the order was being passed “without commenting anything on the merits of the case.”
