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

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the fourth bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the bail application are that on 23.07.2019, complainant Rajesh Kumar Jangid lodged a report at the Police Station Buhana alleging inter alia that Subodh, wife of the complainant was murdered by hatching a conspiracy by the accused persons, particularly Alapna, who is the daughter-in-law of the complainant, with the active assistance and participation of the petitioner Krishna Kumar and the other accused Manish Meena. The deceased was killed by a snake bite, which has allegedly been procured by the petitioner. On the basis of the above, FIR got lodged and accused persons were arrested and investigation commenced.

3. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

4. The first, second and third bail applications of the petitioner were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 05.06.2020, 25.05.2022 & 31.05.2024 passed in SBCRLMB Nos.3121/2020, 7909/2022 & 11371/2022 perhaps looking to the nature and gravity of the offence and so also the fact that the bail applications of co-accused were also rejected by the Coordinate Benches of this Court and even by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. While dismissing the third bail application, this Court issued directions to the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously and a liberty was given to the petitioner to approach this Court again if the trial is not come to an end within a reasonable period. Reason behind doing so was that the delay was never been occasioned on the part of the accused as he is languishing in jail but the prosecution party is not prompt in producing their evidence and so also the matter got adjourned for some or the other reason, however the course of trial was never impeded at the hands of the petitioner.

The case of the prosecution wholly depends upon circumstantial evidence and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Manish Gupta cannot be overlooked after three years of custody that the circumstances put forth against the petitioner are neither definite in tendency nor conclusive in nature and so also those, if taken together, are not unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The motive of the petitioner is nowhere clear by the prosecution.

5. I have minutely pondered over the nature of accusation as well as quality of evidence brought on record and when it was weight and measured in the light of cardinal principles propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, it would come to fore that the four circumstances necessary for the prosecution to establish in a case of death by poisoning are highly debatable and this Court deliberately desisting from making any comment on it because doing so may put a serious dent in the case of either of the parties.

6. It is further revealing that the petitioner is behind the bars in this case from 04.01.2020 and since then he is in continuous custody. From the course of proceeding, it can be presumed that the petitioner is nowhere responsible for the delay occurring in the smooth process of trial. Till date, out of the total 27 projected witnesses, only 18 witnesses could have been examined however, number of witnesses are yet to be examined and this Court feels that looking to the snail’s p