The right to personal liberty and a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates that continued pre-trial detention without substantive evidence is impermissible, and bail should be granted when claims against the accused lack corroboration.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

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

2. His first and second bail application being SBCRLMB Nos.714/2024 & 10168/2024 were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 06.03.2024 & 13.08.2024. Hence, the instant application for bail.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this 02.12.2023 on the basis of statement of co-accused, however he was not present at the spot thus, 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. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

6. Upon a meticulous perusal of the record, it emerges that the petitioner has been incarcerated since 02.12.2023. The sole basis of his implication in the present case is the statement of a co- accused, which, by itself, is a weak and fragile piece of evidence in the absence of any independent corroboration. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner was not apprehended at the scene of occurrence, nor has any incriminating recovery been effected from his conscious possession. Thus, the allegation of his complicity in the alleged transportation of contraband appears to rest merely upon conjecture and unsubstantiated assertion, lacking any cogent evidentiary foundation.

6.1. The Court cannot be oblivious to the fact that, despite the considerable lapse of time, the trial has made little headway.

Though charges have been framed, and proceedings technically commenced, out of a total seventeen witnesses cited by the prosecution, merely two have been examined till date. This delay stands further compounded by the filing of a supplementary charge-sheet on 11.02.2025, implicating one Shakur Khan, which has necessitated the initiation of a de novo trial. The prospect of the trial culminating in the foreseeable future is, therefore, bleak and remote.

6.2. In such circumstances, the continued detention of the petitioner would amount to punitive pre-trial incarceration rather than preventive custody, which is impermissible in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to speedy trial is an integral facet of the guarantee of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India ( Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar , AIR 1979 SC 1369 ; Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar , 1981 Supp SCC 308 ; Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI , (2022) 10 SCC 51 ). Prolonged incarceration without progress in trial not only militates against the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence but also renders nugatory the fundamental presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

7. There exists no legally admissible evidence on record directly connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence, save and except for the statement allegedly made by a co-accused who was apprehended at the spot. According to