IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Pukhraj S/o Lumba Ram Jat – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 10712 of 2024
Decided on : 13-11-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail - The accused-petitioner has been in custody for over three years, with only 8 out of 19 witnesses examined, leading to a violation of the right to a speedy trial. The court emphasized that pre-conviction detention should not be punitive and must ensure the accused's presence at trial. The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged incarceration without trial is unjust. (Paras 5, 8, 30)
(B) Fundamental Rights - The court reiterated that personal liberty is sacrosanct and should not be infringed upon without due process. The conditions of overcrowded prisons and the plight of under-trial prisoners were highlighted, emphasizing the need for humane treatment and timely trials. (Paras 31, 32)
Facts of the case:
The accused-petitioner has been incarcerated for over three years awaiting trial for alleged offences under IPC and NDPS Act, with significant delays in the judicial process.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prolonged detention of the accused violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial, warranting the grant of bail.
Issues: The main issues included the right to a speedy trial and the implications of prolonged pre-conviction detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to a speedy trial is fundamental and that the accused should not be detained indefinitely pending trial. The court emphasized the need for timely justice and humane treatment of under-trial prisoners.
Result: Bail granted to the accused-petitioner.
ORDER :
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S. No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 205/2021. |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Sadar Nimbahera. |
| 3. | District | Chittorgarh. |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | U/Sec. 332, 353, 34 of IPC. |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | U/Sec.8/15 of NDPS Act. |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 03.07.2024 |
2. 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.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA 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 the parties and have perused the material available on record.
5. Be that as it may, the petitioner is behind the bars more than three years and the trial is not going to be culminated in a near future as till date only 8 witnesses have been examined out of 19 witnesses. Looking to the snail’s pace progress of the trial, it can be assumed that further more time shall be taken in reaching of the trial to a legitimate conclusion. Delay in trial always infringes fundamental right of an accused which is otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Here in this case, where fundamental right of the petitioner of having speedy trial has been violated as he is behind the bars for long more than three years. There is special provision under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. suggesting taking of a lenient view in granting bail to a lady, sick, infirm and a boy below the age of 16 years.
6. 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. This Court has passed an elaborated order in the matter of Lichhaman Ram @ Laxman Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5916/2023 decided on 08.02.2024; the relevant part of the said order is being reproduced as under:-
8. As per the fundamental rights granted to every citizen/person by the Constitution of India, the accused cannot be expected to languish in custody for an indefinite period if the trial is taking unreasonably long time to reach the stage of conclusion. An under trial prisoner, who is waiting for the trial to complete and reach a conclusion about his guilt for the alleged crime, is not only deprived of his right to a speedy trial but his other fundamental rights like right to liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of practising a profession or carrying on any occupation, business or trade and freedom to dignity are
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is unjust.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial violates this right.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is unjust.
Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial, necessitating bail for the accused.
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.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is unjustifiable.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is impermissible.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged detention without trial is a violation of this right.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and prolonged detention without trial is a violation of this right.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is fundamental, and prolonged pre-conviction detention without trial is a violation of personal liberty and justice principles.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.