Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Nirdesh Bishnoi, S/o. Sh. Ajay Pal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP and Anr. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 455 Of 2023 Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1782 Of 2023
Decided On : 28-05-2024
BAIL - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 14A(2), Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Sections 302/34, 302/149, 120B, 212 of IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act - The court emphasized the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, interpreting that prolonged incarceration without trial violates this right. The court highlighted the importance of timely justice and the presumption of innocence, concluding that the accused should not be detained indefinitely pending trial, especially when the trial has been unduly delayed.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellants were appealing against their incarceration under various sections of the IPC and the SC/ST Act, arguing that no substantial case was made against them and that their continued detention was unwarranted due to the protracted nature of the trial, which had seen only five out of thirty-four witnesses examined over a span of five years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lengthy delay in the trial process constituted a violation of the accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial. It noted that the trial had not progressed adequately despite multiple directions from the court, and the accused had been in custody for an excessive period without a reasonable expectation of trial completion.
Issues: Whether the accused-appellants should be granted bail considering the prolonged delay in the trial and the implications of their continued detention on their fundamental rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It ruled that prolonged pre-conviction detention is not justified and that the purpose of detention should be to ensure the presence of the accused at trial, not punitive in nature. The court emphasized that the burden of delay should not fall on the accused, especially when the prosecution has not made significant progress in the trial.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders denying bail were set aside. The accused-appellants were granted bail on the condition of furnishing personal and surety bonds, emphasizing the need for a fair and timely trial.
ORDER :
(Farjand Ali, J.) :
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at the instance of accused-appellants. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 647/2018 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Hanumangarh Junction |
| 3. | District | Hanumangarh |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | Section 302/149, 120B, 212 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. |
| 6.(a) | Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLA No.455/2023) | 06.02.2023 |
| 6.(b) | Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLA No.1782/2023) | 08.08.2023 |
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-appellants that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their 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-appellants and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant oppose the appeal and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
6. It is emanating from the record that the petitioner is in custody since 28.05.2019 and trial is not going to be culminated despite several directions passed by this Court. Out of total 34 witnesses, only five witnesses could have been examined till now. This Court would desist from making any comment on the veracity of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses but feels that custody of five years pending trial does not seem good and it is a blatant violation of fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial.
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 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:-
8. As per the fundamental rights granted to every citizen/person by the Constitution of India, the accused cannot be expected to
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, necessitating the grant of bail i....
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 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 a violation of this right.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and prolonged pre-conviction detention without trial is unconstitutional and unjustifiable.
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 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 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is unjust.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and prolonged detention without trial infringes on personal liberty.
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
