The court established that prolonged detention of an accused without trial violates fundamental rights, reinforcing that bail is the rule at the pre-conviction stage.

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. As per the case brief, a First Information Report was lodged on 19.05.2017 at CHC Balesar, on behalf of the applicant, Rajuram S/o Chainaram. It was alleged that on 18.05.2017, within the revenue limits of Mauja Balesar, the applicant/accused, in furtherance of a common intention with co-accused persons, deceitfully lured the complainant’s brother, Hukmaram, by hiring his pick-up vehicle bearing registration number RJ-21 GA-4353. It is further alleged that the accused kidnapped Hukmaram with the intent to commit his murder, and thereafter, committed robbery of the said vehicle, killed Hukmaram by strangulation, disposed of his body by throwing it into a pit, and attempted to destroy the evidence of the offence. Upon conclusion of the investigation, offences under Sections 364 , 302, 201, and 397 read with Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE were found established against the applicant/accused, and a charge sheet was accordingly filed before the competent court. He was arrested on 20.05.2017 and since then he is behind the bars. His first bail application being SBCRLMB No.7140/2019 dismissed as not pressed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.07.2019. Hence the instant bail application.

3. 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 20.05.2017. 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 2017 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 54 projected prosecution witnesses, only 30 could have been examined uptill now. After 06.10.2023, 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 commence and conclude within a session, that is, one ye