Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21, warranting bail when trial delays are significant.

Order :

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 25.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer (Raj) in Bail Application No.1197/2023 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.110/2019 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Ajmer (Rajasthan) for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident. Counsel further submits that appellant is not named in the FIR. Apart from it, the appellant is in custody since 27.04.2019 and as such, he is behind the bars for last five years and nine months. He contends that trial is going at a snail’s pace as till date only 20 witnesses have been examined out of 35 cited witnesses. Conclusion of trial will take considerable time. He also contends that this delay occurring in conclusion of trial is seriously violating the fundamental right of the speedy trial of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India . The period of custody is always relevant consideration for grant of bail. When a trial get prolonged, it is not open for the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused on the ground that the charges are very serious.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as complainant opposes the prayer of bail made in this appeal. It is submitted that looking to gravity of offence and evidence so far come on record, the appellant does not deserve indulgence of bail.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

5. Admittedly, the appellant is in custody since 27.04.2019 and thus, he has served incarceration of nearly five years and nine months. Further, as per the communication dated 06.02.2025 received from the learned trial court, till date only 20 witnesses, out of 35 cited witnesses, have been examined and thus, trial will take long time in its conclusion. The delay occurring in conclusion of trial is seriously violating the fundamental right of the speedy trial of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India .

6. The personal liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is basically a natural right. No one would like to lose his liberty. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society.

7. The expression 'Personal Liberty' in Article 21 of the Constitution is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a person and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19 of the Constitution. 'Personal Liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution primarily means freedom from physical restraint of person by incarceration or otherwise. The concept of "right to life and personal liberty" guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the "right to live with dignity" and it does not mean mere animal like existence of life. After the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision rendered in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India , AIR 1978 SC 597 , Article 21 of the Constitution now protects the right of life and personal liberty of citizen not only from the executive action