An undertrial must not be confined indefinitely; a reasonable period is necessary for a trial's completion, protecting the accused's fundamental rights.

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:

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.10.2018, complainant Balwant appeared before the Station House Officer, Police Station Pratapnagar, Jodhpur, and submitted a handwritten report stating that on 29.10.2018, he received information regarding the discovery of an unidentified female body within the jurisdiction of Police Station Pratapnagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. He further reported that the name “Seema Manish” was inscribed on the right hand of the deceased. Upon receiving this information, and having failed to establish contact with his sister Seema for a considerable period, he grew suspicious. Subsequently, he arrived in Jodhpur along with his relatives and acquaintances. Upon identifying the body kept in the mortuary of Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur, he confirmed it to be that of his sister, Seema. He expressed suspicion that her husband, Manish Jain, was responsible for her death.

2.1. In light of the above, an FIR No. 411/2018, registered under Sections 302 and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE at Police Station Pratapnagar. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 14.11.2018 and since then he is behind the bars. His first, second and third applications being SBCRLMB Nos.12687/2020, 7646/2021 & 14161/2022 dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 13.01.2021, 24.01.2022 & 02.12.2023. At the time of dismissal of earlier bail application, the trial Court was directed to expedite the trial, but the same has yet not been culminated. Hence the instant bail application.

2.2 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. He is in custody since 14.11.2018.

3. 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-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. 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 2018 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 24 projected prosecution witnesses, only 7 could have been examined uptill now. After 24.08.2023, no further witness has been examined and 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.

7. 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 comm