ORDER :

ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J.

1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.172/2023 registered at Police Station Diggi, District Tonk for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 302, 396 & 460 of the IPC.

2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 06.08.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of Investigating Officer Chakrawati Singh. Now, the said Investigating Officer has been examined during the course of trial as PW-14, thus, this second bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that FIR was filed against unknown persons and the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. Counsel submits that entire investigation in this case has been completed and the petitioner is not required for further investigation/interrogation. Counsel further submits that the main accused in this case is Jodharam @ Mukesh @ Jodhya, who inflicted lathi blow on the head of the deceased Baba Siyaram Das, consequent to which he died. Counsel submits that the lathi used in the alleged incident was also recovered on the information given by accused Jodharam under Section 27 of the Indian Evicence Act. It is further submitted that co-accused namely Kalu @ Jeetram @ Rajesh, Omprakash @ Omya and Bablu @ Rajesh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court as well as by co- ordinate bench of this Court. He argues that petitioner is in custody since 09.01.2024 and as such, he has already suffered incarceration of more than two years and two months. It is contended that the trial is going at a snail’s pace as till January, 2026, only 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined, out of 25 cited prosecution witnesses. It is also contended that the delay occurring in conclusion of trial is seriously violating the fundamental right of the speedy trial of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The period of custody is always relevant consideration for grant of bail. When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open for the prosecution to oppose the bail of the accused on the ground that the charges are very serious.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that looking to the gravity of offence and evidence which has come on record so far, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail. He, thus, craves dismissal of the bail application.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 09.01.2024. The delay occurring in conclusion of trial is seriously violating the fundamental right of the speedy trial of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. The personal liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is basically a natural right. No one would like to lose his liberty. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society.

8. The expression 'Personal Liberty' in Article 21 of the Constitution is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a person and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19 of the Constitution. 'Personal Liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution primarily means freedom from physical restraint of person by incarceration or otherwise. The concept of "right to life and personal l