IMPORTANT POINT
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and prolonged detention without trial violates this right.

ORDER :

(Farjand Ali, J.)

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:

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 Special 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 the parties and have perused the material available on record.

5. Though the second bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.05.2024 passed in SBCRLMB No.5364/2023 but the petitioner has filed instant third bail application because out of total 15 witnesses, 3 witnesses have been examined in the trial till date, thus, looking to the snail pace progress of the trial, he has again approach this Court for protecting his liberty.

6. Now it is not in dispute that the petitioner is behind the bar in this case since 09.09.2020. It is a case of the prosecution that upon apprehended in suspicious circumstances on 08.09.2020 by the Officer of NCB, total 29 carton of Tramadol Tablets/Capsules weighing 314.620 kgs. as well as total 338 bottles of Cough Syrups having narcotic substance Codeine Phosphate weighing 33.800 kgs. were found to be in the possession of the petitioner. The charge-sheet has been filed way back and the trial has also been commenced long ago but no endeavours have been made to conclude it. All the relevant witnesses are the Officers of the respondent-NCB but they did not turn up diligently before the trial court so that culmination of trial can be done.

7. 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.

8. 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 around 4 years for the purpose of production of evidence is detrimental to the interest of accused detained in jail.

9. 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 dated 08.02.2024 in the case of Lichhaman Ram @ Laxman Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5916/2023); 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