The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and indefinite detention without trial is impermissible, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.

Order :

1. This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.50/2021 registered at Police Station Sallopat, Dist. Banswara, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused Mahesh Prajapat (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No.1124/2025) has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.01.2025. The order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while enlarging the co-accused Mahesh Prajapat on bail is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

“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 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 both the parties and have perused the material available on record. It is noticed that out of 24 witnesses only 15 have been examined. The petitioner is languishing in jail since more than three years.

5. Another aspect for consideration of the bail plea would be that this Court is of the view that for the purpose of proving charge only a reasonable period can be granted to the prosecution while keeping an accused behind the bars. Still the guilt is to be proved and as per the theory of Criminal Jurisprudence, he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved. In a Sessions case, a trial ought to have commenced and completed within a Session i.e. one year. When some unavoidable circumstances are considered than it can be doubled, however in any case a person cannot be detained for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the prosecution to substantiate the charge as is not desirable under the law. Right to have speedy trial is guaranteed by the Constitution of India and herein this case the same has been infringed owing to lackadaisical behavior of the prosecution party in not presenting the witness in the trial within a reasonable period. When there appears reasonable ground to presume that certain infirmity or legal defect would be fatal to the prosecution still not exercising power of granting bail would mean not honoring the guarantee of the Constitution given to every individual regarding protection of his liberty.

6. This Court observes that the nature and gravity of the offence, alongside the evidentiary materials presented, are not the sole determinants in adjudicating a bail application. The expeditious conclusion of the trial within a reasonable time-frame is an essential consideration when deliberating the grant of bail to an accused. It is a well-entrenched principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that the presumption of innocence remains operative at the pre- conviction stage. The primary objective of incarcerating an accused pre-trial is to secure their presence for trial and to ensure that he/she/they are available to serve the sentence imposed upon him/her/them. Such detention is not intended to be punitive or preventive in na