IMPORTANT POINT
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, ensuring that no accused is unjustly detained for prolonged periods without trial.

ORDER :

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the second 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 16.08.2021, complainant Kishore Chand Tekwani, father of deceased Nikhil, lodged a report alleging inter alia that his elder son Nikhil is having a business relating to sell & purchase of mobiles of Apple company in the city of Kota and its nearby area, for which he used his Creta Car for the said purpose. On 13.08.2021, upon receiving a call from customer, he took five mobile phones of Apple company and proceeded towards Bara Road for its delivery but he did not return to home. At the time when he left his place, he was wearing an Apple watch, gold chain and ring; his two mobile phone along with cash of Rs.50,000/-. On 16.08.2021, one Prashant informed that Nikhil’s car was found in burnt condition in the jungle upon which he went there and found the car in burnt condition and Nikhil’s body was lying therein. His son’s ornaments and other belongings as also his ID card, Credit & Debit Cards were also found missing. He has a doubt that his son has been abducted and after loot, he has been murdered by unknown persons. On the basis of the above, the FIR No.108/2021 got registered at the Police Station Kishorepura and investigation commenced. During investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 17.08.2021. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 30.06.2022 passed in SBCRLMB No.4889/2022. While rejecting the first bail application, a liberty was afforded to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after change in any circumstances. After dismissing the earlier bail application, around 35 witnesses have been examined. Hence, the instant bail application.

3. 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. He submits that eye-witness account of the incident is not available on record. 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.

4. 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.

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

6. Perusal of the material revealing that the eye-witness account of the incident is not available and the case of the prosecution hinges upon certain circumstantial evidence and the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The appreciation of the circumstantial evidence is a tedious task and it can only be done when the entire material is brought on record before the trial Court and while hearing a bail application, this Court is not supposed to comment over the quality and credibility of evidence, since the same may influence the case of any of the parties. What is the undisputed fact is that the petitioner is behind the bars in this case since 17.08.2021 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. The statement of on