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 justifiable reasons is a violation of this right.

ORDER :

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 of petitioner came to be dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order 14.12.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11307/2023.

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 several flaws and laches in the case of the prosecution. 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. It is emanating from the record that on 04.06.2019, on a written report submitted by one Sujan Singh, an FIR bearing No. 57/2019 was registered at the Police Station Ramsar District Barmer alleging interalia that his cousin Veer Singh S/o Jograj Singh was missing from yesterday afternoon and today i.e. on 04.06.2019, one woman informed him that she had seen a dead body lying near the Village Udayraj Singh ki Dhani, upon which, he reached there and identified him as his cousin. It was further alleged that there was an animosity between the deceased and Mahendra Singh thus he has doubt that his brother Veer Singh has been murdered by Mahendra Singh. The allegations that the petitioner killed the deceased seems to be based on assumptions and personal perception because there is no eye witness of the incident. The evidence collected by the prosecution against the petitioner are subjected to scrutiny by the learned trial Court after taking on record the entire material but at this stage when charge sheet has been filed at least the niceties of the matter can be looked into for the purpose of just decision of the bail application.

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 2019 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 27 projected prosecution witnesses, only 13 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:

“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