The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial infringes on the accused's rights.

ORDER :

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

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 30.08.2021, complainant Bhanwar Lal submitted a written report to the SHO, PS Nokha alleging therein that from 26.08.2021 onwards his son Arjun is found missing and he made number of call on his mobile but were unanswered and he searched him but of no avail. He has submitted an application in this regard on 28.08.2021. On the very same day of lodging written report, in the evening he received an information from the police station that an unknown body is lying in the bushes near the Charkada Ki Rohi, whereupon he reached there and identified that body of his son. On the basis of which, an FIR aforesaid was lodged against unknown persons.

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 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 considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. Perusal of record revealing that petitioner is behind the bars since August 2021 and this is his third bail application. At the time of rejecting second bail application being SBCRLMB No.10886/2024 decided on 04.09.2024, the learned trial Court was directed to expedite the trial within a period of six months, but there seems no progress in the trial as the same hasn’t been culminated. Furthermore, the allegation that petitioner 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. As on date out of total 23 witnesses only 9 have been examined till now and it seems that further more time will be taken in conclusion of the trial.

7. 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 can only be doubled and even in that situation, trial has to be completed within two years while keeping an accused in custody. Suffice it would to say that for the purpose of determination as to whether the accused is guilty or not, only a reasonable period can be awarded to the prosecutor if the accused is behind the bars. The cases which are classified as session case are purposefully directed to be heard by senior officer of District Judge Cadre looking to his experience and rank/grade/post. In criminal jurisprudence prevalent in India, there is a presumption of innocence working in favour of the accused until he is proven guilty i