Prolonged detention without trial violates constitutional rights; bail granted due to insufficient evidence and delay in proceedings.

ORDER :

(FARJAND ALI, J.)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them 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-petitioners and they have been made 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. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the niceties of the matter. The bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner Naresh Chandra on earlier occasion was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2024 in the batch of bail applications led by S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2898/2024 and it would be worthwhile to reproduce the facts and the entire bail order; which reads as follows:

"Bail Appln. No.2898/2024 The bail application preferred on behalf of accused Naresh is sought to be withdrawn by the learned counsel for the Petitioner since the court is not inclined to grant bail to him. Still, he is permitted to withdraw the bail application. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of petitioner Naresh Chandra is dismissed as withdrawn.

Bail Appln. No.9320/2024 & 9399/2024

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant applications under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. 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 them and their 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-petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties; perused the material available on record and have gone through the niceties of the matter.

5. The bail granted to co-accused has been made to challenge before Hon’ble the Supreme Court as it is stated by learned counsel for the complainant. For a long, the bail applications of the petitioners have been adjourned for want of status of the above, but it is apprised to this court that till date the bail application pending before the Apex Court has not been disposed of. It is vehemently and fervently argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that similarly situated accused Ashok Kumar, Bhupendra and Vishal have been granted bail by this Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 14.12.2021 & 11.08.2023 passed SBCRMLB No.15535/2021 & 1671/2023 and despite having ground of par