The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and indefinite detention without trial violates constitutional guarantees, warranting bail.

Order

08/01/2025

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

2. The first bail application of petitioner came to be dismissed by the Coordinate Bench Court vide order 22.04.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15117/2023.

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. There are several flaws and laches in the case of the prosecution. 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 perused the material available on record.

6. It is emanating from the record that on 27.11.2018, complainant Jethu Singh submitted a written report to the SHO, Police Station Banad, Jodhpur alleging inter alia that on the intervening night of 27th and 28th November, 2018, around 4:30 AM to 5:00 AM, his nephew Kushalsingh had knocked his door in a distressed state and stated that his parents have been assaulted. Upon which, he rushed to his brother Gajendrasingh's house and found his brother and sister-in-law seriously injured and were lying in pool of blood. The house had been ransacked and valuables were missing. It was further stated in the report that his brother Gajendra Singh had informed the police and subsequently the police party arrived at the crime scene. Whereafter, his brother, sister-in-law and nephew were taken to Hospital where his sister-in-law declared died. On the basis of which, an FIR No.245/2018 got registered against some unknown persons. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offence under Sections 307, 302, 324, 309, 201 of the IPC & Sections 3 & 4/25 of the Arms Act. The allegations against the petitioner are that he killed the deceased seems to be based on assumptions and personal perception because there is no eye witness of the incident. The evidence collected by the prosecution against the petitioner are subjected to scrutiny by the learned trial Court after taking on record the entire material but at this stage when charge sheet has been filed at least the niceties of the matter can be looked into for the purpose of just decision of the bail application.

7. This Court feels that an under trial prisoner should not be kept confined for an indefinite period for no fault of them in impeding the course of trial. A perusal of the material revealing that the trial had been commenced in this matter in the year 2018 but owing to one or the other reason, the recording of the prosecution witnesses could not be completed. It is transpiring that out of the total 48 projected prosecution witnesses, only 16 could have been examined uptill now. 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. 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 wel