IMPORTANT POINT
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 timely trial is a violation of this right.

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the second bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. The first bail application being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13033/2023 came to be dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2023. Hence, the instant bail application. 3. 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.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material made available to the Court.

6. It is emanating from the record that the petitioner is in custody since 26.06.2020 and trial is not going to be culminated despite several directions passed by this Court. Out of total 22 witnesses, seven witnesses are yet to be examined. Mainly two witnesses P.W. Ms. Monika and P.W. 9 Amaan were produced to depose the eye-witness account of the incident before the trial Court. P.W. 9 Amaan has totally absolved the petitioner from the charges and interestingly, he asserted that even P.W. 3 Ms. Monika was also not present at the spot. A perusal of the statement of P.W. 3 Ms. Monkia to somewhat extent creates a doubt regarding her presence at the crime scene, however, this is just a tentative opinion of this Court and is not a final observation.

7. Besides the above, the statement of Medical Officer also reflecting serious discrepancy for which this Court is desisting itself from making any observation in this regard. Some of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, however, P.W 6 Fareed is corroborating the charge but this Court would desist from making any comment on the veracity of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and feels that the custody of four years pending trial does not seem good and it is a blatant violation of fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial.

8. This Court feels that an under trial prisoner should not be kept confined for an indefinite period for no fault of them in impeding the course of trial. A perusal of the material revealing that the trial had been commenced in this matter in the year 2020 but owing to one or the other reason, the recording of the prosecution witnesses could not be completed. It is transpiring that out of the total 22 projected prosecution witnesses, only 15 witnesses could have been examined uptill now. This Court feels that looking to the snail’s pace progress of the trial, it would still take a long time to reach onto a legitimate conclusion. It is also noticed that sincere endeavors have not been made by the trial Court in proceeding with the trial to get an early culmination of the same.

9. Dealing with the identical issue where the trial had been protracted for unreasonable period, an elaborate discussion has been made by this Court while deciding the S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5916/2023 in the matter of Lichhman Ram @ Laxman Ram Vs. State the relevant part of which would be apt to reproduce here which read as under:-

7. This Court feels that the nature and