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

ORDER :

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing the 3rd bail 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 and second bail applications being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 1478/2022 & 15769/2022 came to be dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 18.04.2022 & 22.02.2023. While rejecting the second bail application, the trial Court was directed to record the statement of Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy. Now, the trial Court has recorded the statement of Medical Officer 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 10.09.2021 and the trial is not progressing. 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 marriage of the petitioner and deceased was solemnized in the year 2017 and at the time of marriage no dowry was demanded by the in-laws; it was second marriage of the deceased. It is an admitted fact that at the time of incident, the room in which deceased found hanging was closed from inside. After dismissing the second bail application, the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy has been examined in the trial. She stated in her examination that the cause of death of deceased Hanisha was asphyxia and not the other injuries. The trial is not going to be culminated in near future as out of total 40 witnesses, only 19 witnesses could have been examined till now and it would take a further long time to reach its conclusion. Thus, this Court would desist itself from making any comment on the veracity of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses but feels that custody of more than three 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 2021 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 40 projected prosecution witnesses, only 19 could have been examined uptill now. Abdul Hamid, the father of the deceased and the complainant has been examined in the trial as PW-1, therefore, the possibility of hampering and tampering witness has been negated. 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 V