The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and prolonged incarceration without trial violates this right, justifying bail.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. Bereft of elaborate details of the niceties of the matter or without diving deep into the facts of the case; briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 16.03.2018 an assault was allegedly made by the petitioner upon Raghuveer as a consequence of which he received stab injuries and succumbed to death.

3. The first bail application of the petitioner has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.09.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Appln. No.4080/2023 and the following directions were given to the learned trial Court. The said order is being reproduced as under:-

After arguing to some extent learned counsel seeks withdrawal of the bail application. However, he submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since last five years and six months and thus necessary directions may be passed with regard to speedy disposal of the case. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.

Every accused has been granted a fundamental right by the constitution to have a speedy trial. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Hussainana Khatoon and Ors. Vs. Home Secretary, Bihar and Ors. reported in (1995) 5 SCC 326. and Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2009 SC 1822.

In this case, the accused is incarcerated for long five years and six months and out of total 61 prosecution witnesses, till date only 17 witnesses have been examined, thus, looking to the snail’s pace of the trial, it can be assumed that it may take further long time to reach to a legitimate conclusion.

As per the status available on NCR more than 70% part of the prison is flooded with under trial accused persons. There appears a direct infringement of fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution.

In this view of the matter, the learned trial Court is directed to make sincere endeavors to summon or if need arises to issue compelling process to ensure the presence of prosecution witnesses. It will be open for him to list the matter on weekly basis and unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted to any party. If it is felt that the prosecution party is stalling the process, necessary directions shall be passed to ensure their presence and for which even coercive measures can be applied. If the trial is not concluded within next six months from the date of receipt of this order, petitioner would be at liberty to come before this Court again.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. Perusal of the material available revealing that The petitioner came to be arrested in this case in the month of March 2018 and now more than six years have elapsed but the culmination of trial does not reflect a seeming fate.

8. It is apprised to this Court that despite the above direction