Indefinite incarceration without trial violates the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence, necessitating bail under Section 439 CrPC.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the third bail application under Section 439 CrPC 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 co-accused Vishal S/o Parmendra has been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 21.01.2025 and the case of the present petitioner is not at all distinguishable from the said accused. He further submits that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are several flaws and latches 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 SHO, Police Station Rohat, District Pali, alongwith his team on 30.04.2022 intercepted a Motor Cycle which was driven by Vishal S/o Kishore and Vishal S/o Parmendra was his pillion rider who was having a white bag in his hand wherein 5 plastic bags containing 4 Kg 110 gram opium milk got recovered. After seizure the petitioner and co-accused got arrested and a case under the NDPS Act was registered against them. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed in the Court concerned. Similarly situated co-accused Vishal S/o Parmendra has been enlarged on bail by this court and the case of the present petitioner stands on identical footing.

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 2022 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 23 projected prosecution witnesses, only 7 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 well-entrenched principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that the presumption of innocence remains operative at the pre-conviction stage. The primary objective of incarcerating an accused pre-trial is to secure their presence for trial and to ensure that he/she/they are available to serve the sentence imposed upon him/her/them. Such detention is not intended to be punitive or preventive in nature and an accused cannot be detained for an indefinite period as an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a Court of law.

9. In adherence to the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, it is impermissible to subject an accused to indefinite incarceration if the trial is protracted beyond reasonable limits. An under-trial prisoner, awaiting t