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. The court emphasized that pre-conviction detention should not be punitive and should only be for a reasonable period to ensure the accused's presence at trial.

ORDER :

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the bail 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 he is behind the bars since the year 2019 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.

3. 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 around 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 his alleged involvement in commission of the crime for committing murder of deceased Manjit Singh. It is the case of the prosecution that petitioner was having illicit relationship with Babita (wife of deceased Manjit), which continued even during subsistence of her marriage. It is the story of the prosecution that the petitioner having connivance with his paramour Babita killed the deceased. 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 on record.

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 be 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:

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 be expected to languish in custody for an indefinite period if the trial is taking unreasonably long time to reach the stage of conclusion. An under trial prisoner, who is waiting for the trial to complete and reach a conclu