The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and prolonged detention without trial is impermissible.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

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

2. His first and second bail applications being SBCRLMB Nos.16350/2021 & 10009/2022 were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 09.11.2021 & 24.08.2022. Hence the instant application for bail.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is behind the bars since the year 2021 and 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.

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. Perusal of the record revealing that the petitioner is in custody for more than three years. It is the case of the prosecution as it reflecting from the prosecution witness Rajesh Tyagi and Anil Kumar that the petitioner’s father and his two sons Subham and Deepak restrained the way of Hakim Singh whereafter the accused Deepak and Subham opened gun shot upon him as a consequence of which, the victim Hakam Singh passed away. Thereafter, all the accused fled away. The allegation of inflicting firearm is not attributed to the present petitioner; the cause and motive behind the incident is said to be an acrimony between the two families as there has been a material dispute between the son of the victim and the daughter of the accused for which litigations are pending in the trial Court. Several witnesses are projected by the prosecution to prove the charge. The statement of P.W. 1 Dr Anuj Gupta got recorded on 09.05.2022, on 26.05.2022 P.W. 2 Anil Kumar on 26.05.2022 and P.W. 3 Rajesh Tyagi on 07.06.2022. and this Court dismissed the bail application of the petitioner on 24.08.2022.

7. The startling fact would be that since whereafter the trial has not progressed effectively. From the letter dated 16.04.2024 sent by the learned trial Judge to this Court, it is transpiring that the statement of P.W. 4 Mahendra Singh and P.W. 5 Ankit Tyagi were recorded but the same could not be concluded but deferred to 07.05.2024 for some reasons.

8. This Court feels that an under trial prisoner should not be kept confined for an indefinite period for no fault of him in impeding the course of trial. A perusal of the material revealing that the trial had been commenced in this matter in the year 2021 but owing to one or the other reason, the recording of the prosecution witnesses could not be completed. 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.

9. 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:-

7. This Court feels