Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Roshan S/o Shri Kailash – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 4146/2024
Decided on : 18-04-2024
BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Section 439 CrPC - The court discussed the provisions of Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) regarding bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the right to a speedy trial as fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court highlighted the importance of not detaining an accused for an indefinite period, especially when the trial has been protracted without justifiable reasons. The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the lengthy incarceration of the accused and the slow progress of the trial, which violated the accused's rights to liberty and a timely trial.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner filed a second bail application under Section 439 CrPC after being incarcerated for over five years while awaiting trial for serious charges including murder. The initial bail application was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty to reapply if the trial was not concluded within six months. The trial had not progressed significantly, with only three out of twenty-three witnesses examined.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had not presented sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner to the alleged crime, and the allegations were based on assumptions. The court noted the unreasonable delay in the trial process and emphasized the need for a timely resolution to uphold the accused's rights.
Issues: Whether the accused should be granted bail considering the prolonged period of incarceration and the slow progress of the trial, which potentially violated the accused's right to a speedy trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated 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 serve to ensure the accused's presence at trial. The court also highlighted that unreasonable delays in trial proceedings infringe upon the rights of the accused.
Final Decision: The court allowed the second bail application under Section 439 CrPC, granting bail to the accused-petitioner on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and sureties, citing the prolonged detention and the likelihood of further delays in the trial process.
ORDER :
FARJAND ALI, J.
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:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 40/2019 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Mundwa |
| 3. | District | Nagaur |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Sections 143, 302 9f the IPC |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | Sections 201 & 212 of the IPC |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 17.02.2023 |
2. Vide order dated 29.08.2023 the bail application (SBCRLB No.8474/2023) filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court but a liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach this Court if the trial is not concluded within six months. Till now, trial is not culminated. Hence this bail application.
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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prosecution has not brought any evidence which could connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. 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 challan papers and the other material available on record.
6. It is emanating from the record that on 29.03.2019, Balkishan uncle of the deceased Dinesh lodged an FIR bearing No.40/2019 registered at the Police Station Mundwa, District Nagaur alleging inter alia that his nephew Dinesh was missing from last night and today he was found dead on the roof of Anand Khatik, who is the neighbour of his brother. It was further alleged that there was an animosity between the deceased and Roshan therefore he caste he has doubt that his nephew Dinesh might have been murdered by Roshan. 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 23 projected prosecution witnesses, only 3 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:-
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged pre-conviction detention without trial is unjust and infringes upon the accused's right....
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 timely 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, and prolonged detention without trial is impermissible.
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 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 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, and prolonged incarceration without trial violates this right, justifying bail.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and prolonged pre-conviction detention is unjustified, necessitating bail unless extraordinary circumstances are present.
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
