IMPORTANT POINT
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.

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:

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. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the co-accused person viz. Lalit Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 07.08.2024 passed in SBCRLMB No.10175/2024. He further submits that case of the petitioner is not distinguishable with that of co-accused person, who has already been enlarged on bail.

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. He is not in a position to dispute the fact that the above named co-accused person has already been enlarged on bail by this Court and the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from that of co-accused.

5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

6. This Court vide order dated 07.08.2024 passed in SBCRLMB No.10175/2024 has granted bail to co-accused Lalit Singh while observing as under :-

“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:

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 themselve