Prolonged detention without trial infringes on the accused's fundamental rights, emphasizing the necessity of a speedy trial.

Order :

(FARJAND ALI, J.)

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant 3^rd bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Bhom Singh, while undergoing treatment at the Male Medical Ward, submitted a statement on 29.01.2021 to the effect that he is engaged in agricultural work and occasionally consumes alcohol. On 28.01.2021 at around 6:00 PM, he along with Ladusingh and Hazari—all residents of his village—went to the house of Gulla S/o Ramchandra. Gulla was illicitly manufacturing country-made liquor at his residence. The three of them purchased half a bottle each for Rs.30/- and took the liquor with them. The complainant returned to his house, where he consumed two pegs of the liquor. Subsequently, he began to feel dizzy and started vomiting. It was further stated that other villagers including Ladusingh, Sardar Bhat, and Dalel Singh Rajput also purchased liquor from Gulla Kanjar. As his condition deteriorated, he was taken to Mahua and later admitted to M.G. Hospital, Bhilwara. He stated that his condition had stabilized. He further reported that Dalel Singh Rajput, Hazarilal Bairwa, and Sardar Bhat, who also purchased and consumed liquor from Gulla Kanjar’s house, died as a result. Sattudevi Kanjar also passed away. Ladusingh was hospitalized. Thus, the consumption of the illicit country-made liquor led to the deaths of four individuals. On the basis of the said report, Police Station Mandalgarh registered First Information Report No.27/2021 under Sections 302, 304, 326, 328 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. Upon investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the competent court. Hence, the instant bail application.

4. 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. He further submits that the accused was taken into custody on 20.02.2021 and since then he is behind the bars. Now, after his arrest, more than four years have elapsed but the trial is not going to be culminated and still it seems that a further long time shall be taken in conclusion of the same, thus, he may be enlarged on bail.

5. 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.

6. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2024 passed in SBCRLMB No.11582/2024 and trial Court was directed to expedite the trial. As per which the record, out of total 82 witnesses only 22 could have been examined.

8. As per the law, while keeping an accused detained, the opportunity to the prosecutor to lead evidence can only be given for a reasonable period. The wider connotation of the phrase ‘reasonable period’ be understood to be one year because the case is classified as a sessions case which would mean that the like cases should commence and conclude within a session, that is, one year. Even if an elastic interpretation of the expression ‘reasonable period’ is taken on the pretext of certain unavoidable circumstances, then it ca