Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Babita W/o Manjeet Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 1583 of 2024
Decided On : 05-04-2024
BAIL - Criminal Procedure - Section 439 CrPC, Section 437 CrPC, Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the provisions of Section 439 of the CrPC regarding bail applications, emphasizing the importance of a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court highlighted that prolonged detention without trial infringes on personal liberty and that the presumption of innocence must be upheld. The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the lengthy incarceration of the accused and the lack of direct evidence against her, alongside the need to ensure that the trial is concluded within a reasonable timeframe.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner has been in custody since 2019 for alleged involvement in the murder of her husband, Manjit Singh. The prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence, with no direct witnesses. The petitioner has filed a third bail application after two previous applications were denied, arguing that her continued incarceration is unwarranted and that the prosecution's case is flawed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner has been in custody for over five years without a reasonable prospect of a timely trial. It noted the lack of direct evidence against her and emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial, concluding that prolonged detention without trial is unjust.
Issues: Whether the accused-petitioner should be granted bail considering her prolonged detention, the nature of the evidence against her, and the right to a speedy trial.
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 pre-conviction detention should not be punitive and should only be for ensuring the presence of the accused at trial. The court also noted that the length of incarceration must be reasonable and that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to justify continued detention.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the accused-petitioner, allowing her release on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and sureties, citing the excessive duration of her pre-trial detention and the lack of compelling evidence against her.
ORDER :
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the third bail 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 | 320/2019 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Hamirwas |
| 3. | District | Churu |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Section 302, 120-B and 34 of the IPC |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | --- |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 19.12.2023 |
2. The first and second bail applications of petitioner came to be dismissed by this Court vide orders 21.01.2021 & 29.09.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.6090/2020 & 5891/2022.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that petitioner is behind the bars since the year 2019 and no case for the alleged offences is made out against her and her 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 she has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
3.1 Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant oppose the bail application and submit that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.
5. It is emanating from the record that the petitioner is languishing in jail in this case since more than five years. There are total 29 witnesses projected by the prosecution, out of which, only 4-5 witnesses could have been examined till now. The petitioner is charge-sheeted in this case for her alleged involvement in commission of the crime for committing murder of deceased Manjit Singh, who was her husband. It is the case of the prosecution that marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with deceased Manjit Singh five years prior to the date of incident. As per the allegations, she was having illicit relationship with one Naresh Kumar, which continued even during subsistence of the marriage. It is the story of the prosecution that the petitioner, having connivance with her paramour Naresh Kumar, killed her husband. More or less, the case is based on some circumstantial evidence to infer regarding guilty of the accused and as such, there is no direct evidence and no eye-witness account is available. The petitioner is a lady. Special provisions has been made under Section 437 Cr.P.C. regarding leniency towards a female, sick, infirm and boy below the age of 16 years. The rider contained under Section 437(i) of the Cr.P.C. does not apply in the case of bail to a female and other category of persons enumerated in the provsion.
6. Besides the above, the fundamental right of every accused to have speedy trial has been infringed since pending a trial, an accused should not have been kept behind the bars for an indefinite period. This Court is of the firm view that a person can be detained during trial only for a reasonable period and five years confinement just to give an opportunity to the prosecution to prove charge cannot be said to be a reasonable period. In a like nature case, this Court has elaborately discussed the issue in the matter of Lichhman Ram @ Laxman Ram Vs. State (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5916/2023 decided on 08.02.2024). The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced as under:
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged pre-trial detention without reasonable justification infringes on personal liberty.
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 court emphasized that pre-con....
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.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and prolonged detention without trial can lead to the grant of bail.
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, and prolonged detention without trial is a violation of personal liberty.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged incarceration without trial violates this right.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is unjust.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is unjustifiable.
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.
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
