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

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the 3rd bail application under Section 439 CrPC 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.5452/2019 & 14194/2023 came to be dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide orders dated 13.05.2019 & 07.03.2024. While rejecting the earlier bail application, this Court directed the learned trial Court to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months. Yet there seems no hope of culmination of trial. Hence, the instant bail application.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant Manoj Panchal filed a written report on 28.04.2016 alleging inter alia that his cousin Neelam’s marriage was solemnized with Harish Panchal in the year 2012 and out of their wedlock, one male child born but due to discord between them, she was living at her paternal home from last two years; she was working as a Teacher in a school wherein Piyush was also a Teacher; he was in love with her, but she never responded him. Due to perturbed from his failure in love, he assaulted Neelam when she was going to School, as a result of which, she succumbed to death. On the basis of the above, an FIR NO.181/2016 got registered at the Police Station Rishabdev for the offence 302 IPC and the petitioner got arrested on 29.04.2016.

4. 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. 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. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material made available to the Court.

7. It is emanating from the record that the petitioner has been accused for an offence of murder and he is incarcerated since 29.04.2016 i.e. for last more than eight and half years pending trial without culmination of the same within near future and which has incited this Court to step up for considering his release on this count alone. Without going into the intricacies, niceties and merits of the matter since infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by which a right has been conferred upon every accused to have a speedy trial, has certainly been infringed. The charges may be grave; the material in support thereof may be indicating his role in commission of crime or the punishment may be severe for the accusation, still unless the guilt is proved, he cannot be held guilty much prior to declaring him a guilty through a judgment and so also the trial has to come to an end within a reasonable period.

8. This Court feels that an under trial prisoner should not be kept confined for an indefinite period for no fault of him 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 27 projected prosecution witnesses, few witnesses are yet to be examined. This Court feels that looking to the snail’s pace progress