Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the right to a speedy trial, necessitating bail when delays are not caused by the accused.

ORDER :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

1. This fourth application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.68/2017 registered at Police Station Dudhwakhara, District Churu for offences under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 &120-B of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused person namely Suryaprakash @ Shrawan Kumar (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15448/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.01.2025. Learned counsel submitted that the case of present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail.Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 13.04.2019 and even after lapse of more than 6 years, out of total 23 cited prosecution witnesses, only 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined before competent Criminal Court. Drawing attention of the Court towards the case file, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in trial is not at all attributable to the petitioner, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The order dated 09.01.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

“The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing this third 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 the petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to him and his further incarceration is not warranted. He further submits that the trial is going on at snail's pace as out of 23 witnesses, only 16 have been examined so far, thus, there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial, despite there being no fault on part of the petitioner, who is languishing in jail for last nearly six and half years. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioner may be released on bail.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the bail application and submit 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. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 26.09.2019 and now more than 6 years have lapsed, but the trial is not going to be culminated into a logical conclusion. It is perceived that the delay has not been caused because of the conduct of the petitioner because he is languishing in jail. Out of 23 witnesses, till now only 16 witnesses could have been examined. Looking to the snail's pace progress of the trial, it can be assumed that still it would take a further long time to reach on a legitimate conclusion. When the prosecutor is not serious enough and diligent to produce it's witnesses against a person, who is detained, then he is not right to make a protest of bail even afte