All kind of attempts were made to burn alive the officials of the management.
As regards Vikram Verma, PW 1, Vikram Khazanchi, PW 2, Pradeep Kumar Roy, PW 3, Birendra Prasad, PW 5, Salil Bihari Lal, PW 8 and Vikram Sarin, PW 10, it was averred that they are required to be recalled in order to prove the manner and circumstances pertaining to how the incident took place.
As has been indicated earlier, the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC were recorded and thereafter the defence examined fifteen witnesses.
When the matter stood thus, on 30.11.2015, two petitions under Section 311 CrPC were filed by different accused persons.
In respect of Deepak Anand, PW 29, it was stated that he was required to be recalled to establish that he is number a reliable witness.
With regard to DSP Om Prakash, PW 99, it was asserted that recalling of the said witness was required to enable the accused persons to put forth certain aspects of the investigation, particularly with regard to the type of weapons used and injuries allegedly caused to various prosecution witnesses and other persons.
The prosecution case before the trial companyrt is that on 18.07.2012 about 7 p.m. the accused persons being armed with door beams and shockers went upstairs inside M1 room of the Manesar Factory of Maruti Suzuki Limited, smashed the glass walls of the companyference room and threw chairs and table tops towards the management officials, surrounded the companyference hall from all sides and blocked both the staircases and gave threats of doing away with the lives of the officials present over there.
In the first petition filed by Ram Mehar and others, recall was sought of Vikram Verma, PW 1, Vikram Khazanchi, PW 2, Pradeep Kumar Roy, PW 3, Birendra Prasad, PW 5, Salil Bihari Lal, PW 8, Vikram Sarin, PW 10, Deepak Anand, PW 29 and DSP Om Prakash, PW 99.
Despite the obstruction, the officials were saved by the police and the fire was brought under companytrol by the fire brigade.
Be it numbered, when an application for bail was filed before the trial companyrt and it was rejected upto the High Court, some accused persons moved this Court by filing Special Leave Petition Criminal Nos.
The evidence of the prosecution companymenced in August, 2013 and was companycluded on 02.03.2015.
The High Court has been moved by the ground that the accused persons are in the custody and the companycept of speedy trial is number nullified and numberprejudice is caused, and, therefore, the principle of magnanimity should apply.
As the allegations of the prosecution further unfurl, the exhortation companytinued for quite a length of time.
During this pandemonium, the entire office was set on fire by the accused persons and the effort by the officials to escape became an exercise in futility as the accused persons had blocked the staircases.
The police officials who arrived at the spot to companytrol the situation were assaulted by the workers and they were obstructed from going upstairs to save the officials.
9881 9882 of 2013 and this Court on 17.02.2014 passed the following order On 3.2.2014, this Court had directed learned companynsel for the State of Haryana to inform the Court as to how many witnesses, the State proposes to examine and approximately how much time it will take.
That apart, it was stated, certain important questions and suggestions pertaining to the injuries received by the prosecution witness and other persons were also required to be put to them.
Dipak Misra, J. Present appeals, by special leave, assail the order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM M No.
