Bail is a right at pre-conviction stage barring exceptional circumstances; prolonged detention without trial infringes fundamental rights.

ORDER :

1. This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.60/2020, registered at Police Station Bhojasar, District – Jodhpur (Rural) (now District - Phalodi) for offences under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 341, 323, 354, 440, 447, 307 & 302 of the IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 04.05.2020 at around 10:00 pm, several persons including Rajesh, Hari Prakash @ Guddu, Rakesh, Puna Ram, Magna Ram (present petitioner), Pokar Ram, Jugtaram, Krishna Ram, Sukhram, Shyamlal along with 10- 12 other persons barged into the property of the son of the complainant while carrying lethal weapons and took out the same from tractor and started beating Harish, witnessing the same Ganpat Lal and Shiv Lal tried to rescue him but they were also beaten as well. In furtherance, the clothes of Urmila, (daughter- in-law of the complainant) were torn by the accused persons. In connection with the said incident, the aforementioned FIR was lodged, while the complainant’s son was in coma; however, later on during investigation as Harish died, thus offence under Section 302 was also added. Thereafter on 29.07.2020, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 341, 323, 354, 440, 447, 307 & 302 IPC and subsequently another charge-sheet was filed on 09.11.2020.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused has not caused any injuries to the deceased Harish or any other injured persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no substantial piece of evidence available on record as regard to any participation of the petitioner in the alleged incident. The petitioner is old aged and suffering from ailments.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused-petitioner is in Judicial custody since since 07.05.2020. Considering the long period of custody, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12113/2024, Hari Prakash @ Guddu Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. vide order dated 15.10.2024, has directed the trial Court to conclude the trail within a period of six months, despite that only the statements of 12 witnesses have been recorded out of the total 28 witnesses cited by the prosecution. The complainant party and the prosecution with an intention to delay the trial, are not producing the witnesses in the Court for recording their statements so that accused be kept in incarceration for a long period. This fact is clear from the order- sheets of the learned Trial Court. The complainant party has made a complaint that the accused persons are threatening them. In this regard, police has made interrogation and recorded the statement of victim Urmila who stated that no one has stopped her from giving statement before the Court and nor she has been threatened. Thus, it is clear that in case petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is no apprehension of witnesses to be threatened. He, therefore, submitted that the accused-petitioner cannot be kept in the jail for an indefinite period.

6. In support of the contention aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb , (2021) 3 SCC 713 , in which, while dealing with the cases where fetters are placed on Court’s power to grant bail and the trial has not been completed within a reasonable time, it has been observed as under:-

“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part – III of the Constit