The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged detention without trial is unjustifiable.

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:

order

2. 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.

3. 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.

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

5. The petitioner is behind the bars in this case since the year 2019, now around six years have elapsed but the trial is not going to be concluded despite dismissal of bail application of the petitioner on two previous occasions. While dismissing the bail application of co-accused Krishan Kumar on 31.05.2024, this Court issued certain directions to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously since already much time had consumed in the trial without culmination. A liberty was given to him to renew the prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded. Since, the trial hasn’t concluded, therefore, co-accused Krishan Kumar moved 4^th bail application being SBCRLMB No.13484/2024 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2024. For the ready reference, the considerations made therein shall be reproduced here. It would worthwhile to mention here that more or less the allegations against the petitioner and Krishan Kumar are the same having no distinguishing factors so as to disentitle him to be released on bail. The order dated 14.11.2024 reads as under:-

4. The first, second and third bail applications of the petitioner were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 05.06.2020, 25.05.2022 & 31.05.2024 passed in SBCRLMB Nos.3121/2020, 7909/2022 & 11371/2022 perhaps looking to the nature and gravity of the offence and so also the fact that the bail applications of co-accused were also rejected by the Coordinate Benches of this Court and even by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. While dismissing the third bail application, this Court issued directions to the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously and a liberty was given to the petitioner to approach this Court again if the trial is not come to an end within a reasonable period. Reason behind doing so was that the delay was never been occasioned on the part of the accused as he is languishing in jail but the prosecution party is not prompt in producing their evidence and so also the matter got adjourned for some or the other reason, however the course of trial was never impeded at the hands of the petitioner. The case of the prosecution wholly depends upon circumstantial evidence and the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Manish Gupta cannot be overlooked after three years of custody that the circumstances put forth against the petitioner are neither definite in tendency nor conclusive in nature and so also those, if taken together, are not unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The motive of the petitioner is nowhere clear by the prosecution.

5. I have minutely pondered over the nature of accusation as well as quality of evidence brought on record and when it was weight and measured in the light of cardinal principles propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR