SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1510

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravindra Acharya
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.GA, Mr. Ravindra Singh, Asstt. to GA

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.

Headnote:

(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:-

    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-conviction stage and the objective for keeping a person in jail is to ensure his presence to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. This detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive in nature. An accused is considered to be innocent until he or she or they are proven guilty in the court of law.

    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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top