Prolonged detention without trial infringes the accused's fundamental rights, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial.

ORDER :

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant 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 on 25.07.2020, complainant Smt. Sangeet Sharma lodged a report at the Police Station Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur City West alleging inter alia that his husband was working as Chowkidar under the Classic Art & Craft and when she alongwith her family were sleeping, at around 1:25 a.m. an unknown person entered in their house and made an assault upon her husband resulting which he received injury on his head. She raised hue and cry upon which the said person fled away and the neghibours were gathered. Her husband was taken to the hospital with the aid of her neighbours during treatment he succumbed to death. On the basis of the above information, a case under Section 458 IPC got registered at the Police Station CHB, Jodhpur and during investigation the petitioner was arrested. His first application being SBCRLMB No.4151/2023 came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2023. 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 27.07.2020 and since then he is behind the bars. He further submits that nothing has been recovered or discovered from him. Now, after his arrest, more than four and half 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 23.11.2023 passed in SBCRLMB No.4151/2023. This Court vide order dated 03.01.2025 called a report from the trial Court regarding present status of the trial and in compliance thereof, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan sent a letter dated 07.03.2025, as per which, out of total 22 witnesses only 12 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 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 ex