IMPORTANT POINT
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 unjust and violates this right.

ORDER :

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

2. His first bail application being SBCRLMB No. 2836/2024 was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide orders dated 05.04.2024. While deciding the previous bail application a liberty was given to the petitioner to move a fresh bail application after recording the statement Investigating Officer. Hence the instant application for bail.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is behind the bars since the year 2019 and 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. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of the record revealing that the petitioner is behind the bars in this case for around five years have elapsed. The prosecution has failed to show any direct evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime.

7. A report sent by the learned trial Court showing that now only one witness is remained to be examined, however the possibility of taking further time under Sections 313 & 315 Cr.P.C. and arguments and further arguments cannot be denied. At the same time, it is also felt apt that the accused should be given a fresh atmosphere so that he may lead evidence in defence, if he desires to do so.

8. This Court feels that an under trial prisoner should not be kept confined for an indefinite period for no fault of him in impeding the course of trial. A perusal of the material revealing that the trial had been commenced in this matter in the year 2019 but owing to one or the other reason, the recording of the prosecution witnesses could not be completed. 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 gravity of offence and availability of material in support thereof are not the only factors to be taken into account while considering a bail application. The fact that trial is to be concluded within a reasonable period of time is imperative while considering grant of bail to an accused. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage and the objective for keeping a person in jail is to ensure his presence to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. This detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive in nature. An accused is considered to be innocent until he or she or they are proven