IMPORTANT POINT
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and prolonged detention without trial is a violation of this right.

ORDER :

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the 2nd application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein-below:

2. The first bail application being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6305/2022 came to be dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2022 with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the statements of Rohitash, Rameshwar, Ramswaroop, Alpesh and Ramesh. Hence, the instant bail application.

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 in custody since 25.12.2019 and yet some of the witnesses have been deferred. 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. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material made available to the Court.

6. It is emanating from the record that the petitioner is in custody since 25.12.2019 and trial is not going to be culminated despite several directions passed by this Court. Out of total 21 witnesses, only 15 witnesses could have been examined till now out of which two witnesses i.e. Dr. Sanjay Goyal PW-6 & PW-8 Ramswaroop were recorded but could not be concluded and deferred further thus, this Court would desist from making any comment on the veracity of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses but feels that custody of around 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 2020 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 21 projected prosecution witnesses, only 15 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:

“7. This Court feels that the nature and gravity of offence and availability of material in support thereof are not the only factors to be taken into account while considering a bail application. The fact that trial is to be concluded within a reasonable period of time is imperative while considering grant of bail to an accused. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage and the objective for keeping a person in jail is to ensure his presence to face the trial and to receive