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

ORDER :

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the fourth 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. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the accused detained in jail for more than four years. It is further contended that till date, out of total 11 cited prosecution witnesses, only 1 prosecution witnesses have been examined before competent Criminal Court.

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.

4. 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.

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 material revealing that the petitioner is behind the bars since long time and since then he is in continuous custody. From the course of proceeding, it can be presumed that the petitioner is nowhere responsible for the delay occurring in the smooth process of trial. Till date, out of the total 11 projected witnesses, only 1 witnesses could have been examined however, number of witnesses are yet to be examined and 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. 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.

9. Normally, trial of a sessions case is completed within a period of one year from its commencement, however, for some unavoidable and inevitable circumstances, the period can be extended but keeping the accused detained in jail for more than four years for the purpose of production of evidence is detrimental to the interest of accused detained in jail.

10. This Court has made an elaborate discussion with regard to bail of an under trial accused on the ground of delay in culmination of the trial. This Court feels that if the accused is under detention, it is obligatory for the prosecution to complete the trial within a reasonable period. 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