IMPORTANT POINT
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is a violation of this right.

ORDER :

(Farjand Ali, J.)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing the applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their 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-petitioners and they have been made accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as opposes the bail applications and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. I Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. Co-accused Sahab Singh has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3613/2024. The relevant portion of the said bail application is reproduced as under:-

7. After careful scanning of the material available on record, it is revealed that there were two separate incidents out of which in one incident, Devi Lal @ Pappa, the father of the complainant was all alone on a Motorcycle Splendor and he was going to Village Kama from his village Mullaka. In the midway, between the Govt. Hospital, Kama and the Dak Bungalow, Kama, ten persons made an assault upon him, as a consequence of which, he received several injuries and ultimately succumbed to death wherein in the second incident, which was taken place at Village Mullaka, some of the accused persons allegedly made an assault upon the other family members of the victim. The time and place of both the incidents are different and rather it is not disernable that at what point of time the second incident took place. Although the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the second incident which took place at Village Mullaka but none of the victim of this incident received grievous injuries or injuries which are dangerous to life.

8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of the incident, the previous incident and inclusion of several other persons in the second incident, it is felt that the genuineness of the crime can only be discernible after the entire evidence would be brought on record and that task would be undertaken by the learned trial Judge. As on date, what is revealing that the petitioner was not present at the crime scene in which deceased Devi Ram received fatal injuries. Indisputably, no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner in causing injuries to the deceased. His name finds place in a separate incident in which neither any fatal injuries is complained nor serious allegations are levelled against him.

9. The another aspect of the matter is that the petitioner is behind the bars since a long and there are several prosecution witnesses out of which a very few could have been examined till date. It is a firm view of this Court that an under trial prisoner cannot be incarcerated for an indefinite period. Only a reasonable time can be granted to the prosecution to prove its case and at the same time, the accused cannot be left languishing in jail for want of evidence against him as he required to be presumed innocent until the guilt is proven.

10. Normally, trial of a sessions case is completed within a period of one year from i