Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Lalit Singh, S/o. Shaitan Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 10175 of 2024
Decided On : 07-08-2024
BAIL - Bail Application under Section 439 CrPC - Section 439 CrPC, Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that prolonged detention without trial violates this right. The court highlighted the importance of timely justice and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, leading to the decision to grant bail due to the unreasonable delay in the trial process.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner filed a fourth bail application under Section 439 CrPC after previous applications were dismissed. He argued that the allegations against him were unfounded and that his continued incarceration was unwarranted, especially given the lengthy delay in the trial process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been in custody for over three and a half years with only a fraction of witnesses examined. The court noted that the trial's slow progress and the absence of key witnesses constituted a violation of the petitioner's right to a speedy trial.
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. It emphasized that prolonged detention without trial is unjust and that the purpose of pre-conviction detention is to ensure the accused's presence at trial, not to punish them.
Final Decision: The court allowed the bail application under Section 439 CrPC, granting bail to the accused-petitioner due to the excessive delay in the trial and the violation of his right to a speedy trial.
ORDER :
(Farjand Ali, J.) :
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the 4th application under Section 439 CrPC 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 | 53/2020 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Mandali |
| 3. | District | Barmer |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Sections 323, 458, 307, 427, 341, 148 & 149 of the IPC |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | In alternate Sections 341/34, 323/34, 307/34 & 302/34 of the IPC |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 26.07.2024 |
2. The first, second and third bail applications being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.6611/2021, 16243/2022 & 16374/20223 came to be dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide orders dated 03.06.2021, 12.12.2023 & 01.02.2024. 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 14.12.2020 and trial is not going to be culminated despite several directions passed by this Court. Out of total 30 witnesses, only seven witnesses could have been examined till now. However, despite issuance of bailable warrants witnesses including star witness Ravindra Singh have willfully abstained themselves from appearing before the trial Court. The star witness Ravindra Singh was called by the trial Court on number of occasions but did not appear before it, such action of this witness violates the right to life and liberty of the petitioner. This Court would desist from making any comment on the veracity of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses but feels that custody of more than three and half years pending trial does not seem good and it is a blatant violation of fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial.
7. 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 30 projected prosecution witnesses, only 7 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.
8. 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:-
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 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 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 timely trial is a violation of this right.
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, 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 of India, and prolonged pre-conviction detention without trial is unjust and infringes upon the accused's right....
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, 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 of India, and prolonged detention without trial is a violation of this right, necessitating the grant of bail i....
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and prolonged detention without trial infringes on personal liberty.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
