IMPORTANT POINT
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and prolonged detention without trial can lead to the grant of bail.

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.5010/2022 & 2430/2024 were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 12.12.2023 & 05.04.2024. Hence, the instant bail application.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 11.08.2020, Sub Inspector Govardhanram, P.S. Banar submitted a report to the effect that upon receiving an information that a dead body of unknown person was lying at the STF Plant, behind the Nandi Gaushala, he along with his team reached at the place of incident whereupon Poonamchnad Valmiki, Supervisor, Sewerage Plant and Pappu Mandal, Operator told that in the morning at the time of cleaning water channel, a cloth bag wherein both legs and hands of unknown person was found, it was reflected that the same were cut through a cutter machine. On the basis of which a case got registered under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC and investigation commenced. After usual investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed in the Court concerned against accused Bhiyaram, Seema, Priyanka, Babita and Rajesh.

4. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against her and her incarceration is not warranted. He submits that the petitioner is behind bars since 13.08.2020 and the trial is progressing at a very slow pace. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and she 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. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. Perusal of the record revealing that three sisters are booked in a murder case of Sushil Choudhary, who happens to be the husband of Smt. Seema. The story set up in the charge sheet is that the wife of the deceased took him with her by luring at a place where he was administered medicinal drug as a consequence of which, he fell unconscious whereafter at first, large vessel of his hand was cut down and after his death, his body was chopped into pieces and picked them in the packets and then threw in the sewerage line. The eye-witnesses account of the incident is not available on the record and the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence, however, there is a strong submission of the defence to the effect that neither of the circumstances put forth against the petitioner is definite in tendency or conclusive in nature. Motive play an important role in the cases based upon circumstantial evidence and the above preposition time and again are propounded through a plethora of judicial pronouncements by Hon’ble the Supreme Court.

8. After minutely gone the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the annexed material, I don’t find any concrete and plausible material on the basis of which an inference can be drawn so as to know the reason, cause and motive of the wife and her sisters to kill the deceased. The evidence that medicine administered to the deceased was procured from a veterinary Compounder and the fact that the cutter purchased for chopping body parts of the deceased are on record but from nowhere the piece of evidence