IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Paras Singh S/o Poonam Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 7385/2023
Decided on : 09-04-2024
BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - The court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, interpreting that prolonged incarceration without trial infringes on personal liberty. The court referenced various precedents establishing that an accused should not be detained for an unreasonable period, especially when the trial is delayed. The decision to grant bail was influenced by the lengthy duration of the petitioner's detention and the likelihood of further delays in the trial process.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner has been in custody since April 26, 2017, facing charges under Sections 341 and 302 of the IPC. The petitioner contended that the case against him was based on conjecture and that his continued incarceration was unwarranted due to the prolonged delay in trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over six years without a reasonable prospect of a timely trial, which violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial. The court noted that the trial's snail-paced progress justified the grant of bail.
Issues: Whether the accused-petitioner should be granted bail considering the prolonged period of incarceration and the delay in the trial process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It held that prolonged detention without trial is not justifiable and that the presumption of innocence must be upheld until proven guilty. The court also emphasized that the purpose of pre-conviction detention is to ensure the accused's presence at trial, not to punish them.
Final Decision: The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and sureties.
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:
| S. No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 59/2017 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Siwana |
| 3. | District | Barmer |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | U/Sec. 341, 302 of IPC. |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | -- |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 11.01.2023. |
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 Additional Government Advocate opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I 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 facing trial for the accusation of committing office of murder. He is behind the bars since 26.04.2017 and the trial is not going to be culminated in a near future. Looking to the snail’s pace progress of the trial, it can be assumed that further more time shall be taken in reaching of the trial to a legitimate conclusion. Delay in trial always infringes fundamental right of an accused which is otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
6. This Court is of the firm opinion that an accused cannot be kept behind the bars more than a reasonable period. What should be a reasonable period has elaborately been discussed by this Court in an identical case of Lichhaman Ram @ Laxman Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (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:-
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 conclusion about his guilt for the alleged crime, is not only deprived of his right to a speedy trial but his other fundamental rights like right to liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of practising a profession or carrying on any occupation, business or trade and freedom to dignity are also hampered.
9. Life without liberty is like a body without soul. Freedom is the open window through which pours the sunlight of the human spirit and human dignity. Personal liberty of the accused is sacrosanct and quintessential to the very spirit and structure of a civilisation. Jeremy Bentham, the great English jurist, postulated that the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the end of law. The concept of civil liberty is embedded in individualism. This simply means that the purpose of the stat
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
Union of India (UOI) Vs. K.A. Najeeb, reported in AIR 2021 SC 712
Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. Vs. R.S. Nayak & Ors.
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 597
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 cause is a violation of this right.
Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial, necessitating bail for the accused.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged pre-trial detention without trial is a violation of 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 of India, and prolonged pre-trial detention without a reasonable timeframe for trial completion is a violation ....
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and prolonged detention without trial infringes on personal liberty.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and prolonged pre-conviction detention without trial is unconstitutional and 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.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is impermissible.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is a violation of this right.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.