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 unjustifiable, warranting the granting of bail.

ORDER :

(Arjand 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:

2. The first bail application of petitioner came to be dismissed by the Coordinate Bench Court vide order 28.01.2021 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12807/2020.

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 26.12.2018, complainant submitted a report to the SHO, Hanumangarh alleging interalia that in the evening around 7:00 p.m. when he alongwith his wife returned from market to home, they saw a Maruti Car was standing in front of their house and all the four persons sitting therein came out from the car and out of these four persons, one held the hand of his wife. Upon making hue and cry, his son Ravi came out of the house upon which one of them fired a gun shot upon his son resulting which he succumbed to death. On the basis of this, an FIR bearing No. 647/2018 was registered at the Police Station Hanumangarh Junction District Hanumangarh. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. There are contradictions in the statement of P.W. 3 Rani & P.W. 4 Sharmila. 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 34 projected prosecution witnesses, only 5 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 Applicat