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 reasonable timeframe for trial completion 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 CrPC 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. 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.

4. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. The petitioner is behind the bars in this case for the allegation that he made an assault over the victim Purba Ram, as a consequence of which, he received injury on his skull and then passed away. It is revealing that there was a trivial dispute between the parties in which, after investigation, the petitioner Gena Ram and one Kana Ram were charge-sheeted for offence of committing murder and for some other minor offences. Delinquent Chutra Ram was below the age of 18 years, therefore, police report against him was submitted before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Nagaur. The trial has been commenced way back but the prosecution submitted an application under Sections 319 and 216 of the Cr.P.C. which came to be allowed vide order dated 05.02.2020 and a de-novo trial was ordered to be conducted. There are total 28 witnesses out of which 19 have been examined till now and it seems that further more time will be taken in conclusion of the trial.

6. Delay in trial while keeping the accused in custody gives the accused a legitimate right to ask for release on bail. This Court has been of the view that for the purpose of substantiation only a reasonable period can be granted to the prosecution and pending trial an accused cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period. Dealing with the aforesaid issue, 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:-

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 guilty in the court of law.

8. As per the fundamental rights granted to every citizen/person by the Constitution of India, the accused cannot b