Refusing regular bail to a man accused of murdering a woman in the presence of her 78-year-old father, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the victim’s family cannot be left in a helpless situation merely because of a lacuna in the prosecution’s case.Justice Sanjay Vashisth dismissed the petition filed by Harshdeep Singh in custody for more than three years in connection with the FIR registered on April 9, 2023, for murder under Section 302 of the IPC at the Focal Point police station in Ludhiana. It was registered by complainant Bant Singh, 78, whose daughter Babaljit Kaur was allegedly murdered in his presence.The bench clarified that trial court would not cause unnecessary delay in taking final decision on any of the pending application and “also if application is allowed, prosecution agency would not cause any unnecessary delay in production of the witnesses”. In any case, any such exercise if required, be completed within next two-three months’ period.The petitioner had sought regular bail contending that the trial was progressing slowly, with only seven out of 21 prosecution witnesses examined despite having spent around three years and two months in custody.Referring to the FIR, Justice Vashisth observed the complainant had clearly mentioned that the petitioner was holding a knife in his hand and was giving multiple blows to his daughter Babaljit Kaur on her neck and face. She was already lying down in a serious condition in veranda and the complainant’s granddaughter aged about 18 was inside her room due to the fear.During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that the complainant, an eyewitness, died after his examination-in-chief was recorded. It was further submitted that another eyewitness had been given up by the prosecution, while yet another witness had turned hostile during trial. Although one witness supported the prosecution, the defence pointed out that he had “not originally cited as an eyewitness of the incident”.The petitioner also challenged the prosecution’s move to summon another witness residing abroad. It was added that her name did not figure in the original list of prosecution witnesses, and the application had been filed at a “belted stage”, after prolonged incarceration of the accused.Examining the record, Justice Vashisth observed that the presence of the witness at the scene was evident from the FIR itself. “This court notices that the newly summoned witness is the granddaughter of the complainant Bant Singh and her presence at the spot is very much there in the detailed version. It is both shocking and surprising as to why she was not cited as a prosecution witness by including her in the list of witnesses,” the bench observed.The bench also expressed dissatisfaction with the State’s inability to explain the omission. Justice Vashisth recorded: “The State counsel is not in a position to explain as to for what reason she was not made a witness or why her statement was not recorded earlier, or why the application has been moved at such a belated stage, thereby giving the accused an opportunity to seek bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of trial, saying that only seven out of a total 21 prosecution witnesses have been examined.”Rejecting the plea, Justice Vashisth referred to the broader principles governing criminal trials. “The court cannot ignore the core purpose of criminal jurisprudence in the country. Merely due to a lacuna in the prosecution’s case the victim’s family cannot be left in a helpless situation, and that too without any remedy to correct the error done by prosecution agency, while the accused is seeking permission toenjoy liberty,” the bench asserted.The court clarified that it was refraining from commenting on the conduct of the prosecution regarding her omission from the original witness list. “At this stage, no comment is warranted regarding the conduct of prosecution, as to why she, now sought to be summoned, was omitted from the original list of witnesses.”