The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution necessitates bail for an accused incarcerated for an extended period, despite serious charges.

JUDGMENT :

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Pednekar, learned Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Nakhwa, learned APP for the Respondent No.1 – State and Ms. Prajapati, learned Counsel appointed to represent the interest of the Respondent No.2.

2. This is the second Bail Application. The first Bail Application i.e. Bail Application No.213 of 2024 has been allowed to be withdrawn by this Court by Order dated 30th January 2024 by granting liberty to the Applicant to file the second Bail Application after a period of 6 months in case there is no substantial progress in the trial.

3. In this Bail Application preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), the relevant details are as follows:-

4. Mr. Pednekar, learned Counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant is incarcerated since 12th December 2020 i.e. for a period of 3 years and 10 months. He states that the Charge-sheet has been filed on 7th February 2021 and the Charge was framed on 22nd August 2022 and till date there is no progress in the trial except the examination of one witness i.e. panch witness. He states that when the Applicant was arrested his age was about 20 years. He submitted that the father of the Applicant passed away when the Applicant was in custody and there is no other person to take care of his mother.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Nakhwa, learned APP and Ms. Prajapati, learned Counsel appointed to represent the interest of the Respondent No.2 submitted that the material on record shows that the Applicant is involved in a very serious offence. Both of them pointed out the F.I.R., statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, the medical report as well as the other material on record.

6. Ms. Prajapati, learned Counsel appointed to represent the interest of the Respondent No.2 relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shivani Tyagi v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 842 and more particularly on Paragraph No.5 of the same. The Said Paragraph No.5 reads as under:-

“5. In the decision in Anwari Begum v. Sher Mohammad this Court in paragraphs 7 and 8 held thus:—

“7. Even on a cursory perusal the High Court's order shows complete non-application of mind. Though a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case is to be avoided by the Court while passing orders on bail applications, yet a Court dealing with the bail application should be satisfied as to whether there is a prima facie case, but exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case is not necessary. The Court dealing with the application for bail is required to exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.

8. There is a need to indicate in the order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly where an accused was charged of having committed a serious offence. It is necessary for the Courts dealing with application for bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail, they are:

1. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence;

2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

3. Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

Any order dehors of such reasons suffers from non-application of mind as was noted by this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598, Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338 and in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528.”

7. Perusal of statement of the victim recorded under Secti