IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Farjand Ali, J.
Krishnaram S/o Shri Hemaram - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8100/2024
Decided On : 08-07-2024
BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Section 439 Cr.P.C., Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, interpreting that prolonged incarceration without trial infringes upon this right. The court highlighted that the purpose of pre-conviction detention is to ensure the accused's presence at trial, not to punish them. It noted the necessity for trials to conclude within a reasonable timeframe, and that excessive delays violate the rights of the accused, leading to the decision to grant bail in this case.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner has been in custody for over six years awaiting trial for alleged offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC. The petitioner contended that the case against him was based on conjectures and that his continued incarceration was unwarranted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prolonged detention of the petitioner without a timely trial violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial. It acknowledged the snail's pace of the trial process and the implications of such delays on the rights and dignity of the accused.
Issues: Whether the accused-petitioner should be granted bail considering the prolonged period of incarceration and the delay in the trial process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It held that prolonged detention without trial is unjust and that the state must ensure timely trials to uphold the rights of the accused.
Final Decision: The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the accused-petitioner was granted bail on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and sureties.
ORDER :
Farjand Ali, J.
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S. No. | Particulars of the Case |
|
| 1. | FIR Number | 199/2017. |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Sindhari. |
| 3. | District | Barmer. |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | U/Sec. 498-A, 304-B of IPC. |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | U/Sec. |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 05.06.2024. |
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and have perused the material available on record.
5. Be that as it may, the petitioner is behind the bars more than six years and the trial is not going to be culminated in a near future. Looking to the snail’s pace progress of the trial, it can be assumed that further more time shall be taken in reaching of the trial to a legitimate conclusion. Delay in trial always infringes fundamental right of an accused which is otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Here in this case, where fundamental right of the petitioner of having speedy trial has been violated as he is behind the bars for long more than six years.
6. This Court has made an elaborate discussion with regard to bail of an under trial accused on the ground of delay in culmination of the trial. This Court feels that if the accused is under detention, it is obligatory for the prosecution to complete the trial within a reasonable period. This Court has passed an elaborated order in the matter of Lichhaman Ram @ Laxman Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5916/2023 decided on 08.02.2024; the relevant part of the said order is being reproduced as under:-
8. As per the fundamental rights granted to every citizen/person by the Constitution of India, the accused cannot be expected to languish in custody for an indefinite period if the trial is taking unreasonably long time to reach the stage of conclusion. An under trial prisoner, who is waiting for the trial to complete and reach a conclusion about his guilt for the alleged crime, is not only deprived of his right to a speedy trial but his other fundamental rights like right to liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of practising a profession or carrying on any occupation, business or trade and freedom to dignity are also hampered.
9. Life without liberty is like a body without soul. Freedom is the open window through which pours the sunlight of the human spirit and human dignity. Personal liberty of the accused is sacrosanct and quintessential to the ver
Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. Vs. R.S. Nayak & Ors.
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. AIR 1978 SC 597
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged pre-trial detention without trial is a violation of this right.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is unjust.
Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial, necessitating bail for the accused.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged pre-conviction detention without trial is impermissible.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged pre-trial detention without reasonable cause is a violation of this right.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is impermissible.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged pre-trial detention without a reasonable timeframe for trial completion is a violation ....
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and prolonged pre-conviction detention without trial is unconstitutional and unjustifiable.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged detention without trial is a violation of this right.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is unjust.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.