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

ORDER :

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing this third 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 no case for the alleged offences is made out against the petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to him and his further incarceration is not warranted. He is not having any criminal antecedents other than the case at hand. He further submits that the trial is going on at snail's pace and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial, despite there being no fault on part of the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioner may be released on bail.

3. 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.

4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 26.07.2020 and now more than 4 years have lapsed, but the trial is not going to be culminated into a logical conclusion. It is perceived that the delay has not been caused because of the conduct of the petitioner because he is languishing in jail. Out of 29 witnesses, till now only 14 witnesses could have been examined. The second bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this court on 27.02.2024 and at that time, looking to his long incarceration, he was given a liberty to approach this court again if the trial is not culminated within a period of 6 months. Even after lapse of 9 months, the trial has not proceeded adequately, therefore, the petitioner has acquired a good case for bail. Looking to the snail's pace progress of the trial, it can be assumed that still it would take a further long time to reach on a legitimate conclusion. When the prosecutor is not serious enough and diligent to produce it's witnesses against a person, who is detained, then he is not right to make a protest of bail even after 4 years of incarceration. This court feels that a Sessions case has to be commenced and concluded within one session, that would mean one year. The one year shall commence from institution of the case and the case should be concluded before the end of that one year. Even if an elastic interpretation is taken, then too a pending trial prisoner cannot be asked to wait for 4-5 years only for the purpose of permitting the other party to bring the evidence against him. In fact, in the cases where the prosecution unscrupulously producing its evidence and causing delay, an undertrial prisoner cannot be incarcerated for the purpose of production of evidence against him.

5. 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 there is presumption of innocence at the pre-convictio