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

ORDER :

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the 3rd application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein-below:

2. Bereft of elaborated details, succinctly stated the facts necessary for disposal of the instant bail application are that an FIR No. 37/2021 came to be lodged at the Police Sation Shipra Path, Jaipur (South) for the offence under Sections 449, 459, 302 & 394 of the IPC. The crux of the FIR is that the complainant Yugantar Sharma submitted a report alleging inter alia that upon receiving a phone call from the neighbor of his sister, he immediately rushed to her house and saw that his sister Vigya Sharma was tied with cloth and was not in sense. She was immediately evacuated to Saket Hospital where during treatment, she died. From the circumstances of the spot as noticed by the complainant, a doubt was casted that some unknown person barged into her house with an intent to commit an offence of loot and murdered his sister Vigya Sharma. The investigation was commenced thoroughly and upon suspicion, the petitioner was arrested and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in the Court concerned vide Charge-sheet No. 73/2021 dated 15.03.2021. After taking cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the trial Court where charges were framed and trial commenced. Till date, out of total projected 32 prosecution witnesses, statements of 23 witnesses are completed and examination of two witnesses is underway.

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. He is languishing in jail for more than three and half years and trial has not been concluded. 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 and learned counsel for the complainant oppose the bail plea and submit that the present is not a fit case for enlargement of accused on bail.

5. I have heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and minutely gone through the material made available to the Court.

6. The bail applications preferred on behalf of the petitioner got dismissed on two occasions by this Court (first and second bail applications being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 7378/2021 & 5039/2022 dismissed vide orders dated 02.06.2021 & 24.08.2022) and a liberty was given to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after recording of the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses and so also if the trial is not culminated within a reasonable period. As mentioned above, more than 3 years and 7 months have elapsed while detaining the accused but trial has not come to an end.

7. On scrutinizing the material, it is revealing that the eye-witness account of the incident is not available and the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon so called circumstantial evidence. Whether the circumstances put-forth in the matter are definite in tendency and conclusive in nature or are unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused, is a serious question to be assessed and evaluated by the trial Judge at first hand when the entire material would be taken on record. As on date, what this Court feels that only a reasonable period can be granted to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and to substantiate the charge for which, the prosecution has b