Bail should be granted in cases of unreasonable trial delay, reflecting the presumption of innocence and ensuring fundamental rights are protected according to criminal jurisprudence.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

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. Briefly, the facts of the case are that The complainant, Satyanarayan, filed a written report at Police Station Behror on 26.11.2019, stating that on 25.11.2019, he had gone to his sister’s residence in the village Gunti. Around 8:00–8:30 PM, his brother Bharat Singh informed him over the phone that Anil Yadav had been shot in the neck and chest by Chhotiya and three to four of his accomplices near the Haryana–Rajasthan border around 6:30–7:00 PM. Anil Yadav, grievously injured, had fallen on the roadside. Rinku and Pradeep immediately took him to Kailash Hospital, Behror.

2.1. The complainant, accompanied by his younger son Manoj, reached Kailash Hospital, where Anil Yadav was under medical treatment. He was found in an unconscious state, with gunshot injuries to his neck and chest, and in critical condition. Rinku and Pradeep informed the complainant that Anil Yadav had indicated, while en route, that the shooting was carried out by Chhotiya, a resident of Gugdiya; this statement was reportedly recorded on their mobile phones.

2.2. Due to the critical nature of the injuries, the attending doctors referred Anil Yadav to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Despite medical intervention, Anil Yadav was pronounced dead during treatment, and his body was preserved in the mortuary of SMS Hospital, Jaipur. A post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted, and the body was subsequently handed over as per protocol.

2.3. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 1005/2019 was registered under Sections 143 , 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 /25 of the Arms Act, and an investigation was initiated. During the course of the investigation, the crime scene was inspected, the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted, and statements of witnesses were recorded.

2.4. During the investigation, the petitioner/accused and another individual were apprehended. The petitioner/accused was found prima facie implicated under Sections 302 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act, and was taken into custody on 04.02.2020. The petitioner/accused has since been in judicial custody.

2.5. The investigation concluded with the submission of the charge sheet against the petitioner/accused under Sections 302 , 212 IPC and Sections 3 /25 of the Arms Act before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behror, and the case was committed to this Court for trial. On 19.02.2021, the formal charge under Section 302 was framed against the petitioner/accused. The trial is ongoing and evidence is being recorded by the prosecution. His second bail application being SBCRLMB No.15220/2023 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2024. Hence, the instant bail application.

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 04.02.2020. 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 Prose