The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and indefinite detention without trial violates constitutional guarantees, necessitating bail for accused-petitioners.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing the bail applications under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. The first and second bail application of petitioner-Ramraj came to be dismissed by this Court vide orders 09.03.2022 and 21.05.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.122/2022 & 9218/2023.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are several flaws and laches 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-petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 on 17.09.2021 complainant Mehboob Ali lodged a written report at Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, stating that on 16.09.2021, at approximately 11:00 AM, his father, Jumma, was asleep in a room at his poultry farm, which belongs to him. At that time, his wife Aisa, along with her former husband’s sons, Mukesh and Ramraj, as well as Prabhu and two other accomplices, conspired together and murdered his father using wooden sticks and weapons. As a result of the assault, Jumma sustained injuries and sccumbed to death. The accused left a motorcycle at the scene and fled by jumping over the wall. Based on the said report, an FIR No. 240/2021 was registered under Sections 147, 149, 450, 342, and 302 of the IPC, and an investigation was initiated. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the court against the accused persons under Sections 450, 342, 302, 34, and 120B of the IPC. The allegations against the petitioner are that he 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.

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 2021 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 10 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.