IMPORTANT POINT
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial violates this right, warranting bail.

ORDER :

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 17.08.2021, Shri Hanuman Sahahy lodged a complaint at the Police Station Phagi, Distt. Jaipur to the effect that today at around 12:30-1:00 p.m. when he was at his field and was doing farming job along with his wife Mathura Devi and two sons namely Mahesh and Shanker, all of sudden, Gopal, Mohan, Trilok and Raju Devi armed with weapons like lathis and iron rods came there and with an intention to kill them, made an assault. He and his family members tried to fled from the spot but during that course accused Mohan drove tractor over his wife Mathura Devi as a consequence of which she fell down and his both sons Mahveer and Shanker also inflicted injuries on the vital parts of their bodies. The complainant anyhow made his escape good and fled away towards village and informed villagers about incident upon which, the villagers reached at the spot the accused persons ran from the spot. All the injured persons were admitted to the hospital for treatment. During treatment, his wife Mathura Devi succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the above, FIR got lodged and accused persons were arrested and investigation commenced.

3. The first, second and third bail applications of the petitioner were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide orders dated 25.08.2022, 31.07.2023 & 21.03.2024 passed in SBCRLMB Nos.8499/2022, 6392/2023 & 1947/2024. While rejecting the third bail application, this Court issued directions to the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and a liberty was given to him to approach this Court again if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period. Hence, the instant bail application.

4. 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.

5. 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.

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

7. Perusal of the material revealing that the petitioner is behind the bars in this case from August 2021 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 24 projected witnesses, only 13 witnesses could have been examined however, number of witnesses are yet to be examined and this Court feels that looking to the snail’s pace progress of the trial, it would still take a long time to reach onto a legitimate conclusion. It is also noticed that sincere endeavors have not been made by the trial Court in proceeding with the trial to get an early culmination of the same.

8. 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 prosecu