Point of law: It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

This is the second bail application while the first bail application has been rejected vide order dated 20.07.2016.

2. The appellant has been convicted by judgment and order dated 17.01.2013 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 7, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 885/2010 arising out of Case Crime No. 149/2010, under Sections-498-A, 302, I.P.C., relating to Police Station-Mahmodabad, District Sitapur.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant while pressing the bail application moved on behalf of the appellant-applicant submits that appellant-accused is in jail nearly 9 years and there is no likelihood that the appeal may be heard in near future.

4. So taking into consideration the said facts as well as the fact that the PW-1, the author of the F.I.R. the father of the deceased in his statement stated that on the date of incident, the appellant-accused is working with him in his field and after hearing news of death, he along with him went to the place where deceased was found dead. So taking into consideration the said facts, he may be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. while opposing the bail application submits that the first bail application of the appellant-applicant has been rejected on merit vide order dated 20.07.2016, relevant portion of the same is quoted here-in-below:--

"Accused-appellant Tulsi Ram, who happens to be husband of the deceased, is convicted for the murder of his wife. Deceased was found dead inside the house of appellant. Cause of death was reported to be strangulation. Three other injuries were also found on the body of the deceased. Accused has come with a specific defence during trial that there was altercation of the deceased with his brother Ram pal and thereafter she died all of a sudden and taking advantage of her death he has been falsely implicated. Thus, the appellant could not furnish any explanation for the death of his wife which took place inside his house. The defence taken by him is patently false as cause of death was strangulation. Appellant was not granted bail even during trial."

6. So taking into consideration the said fact as well as the fact that the appellant-applicant has been rightly convicted by trial court for the offences on the basis of evidence on record, so he is not entitled for bail.

7. Accordingly, while rebutting the said contention that so far as the period of incarceration has not been disputed by learned A.G.A. So taking into consideration the said fact as well as the fact that in the present case, statement of PW-1, the complainant not taking into consideration by this Court while making the first bail application. In view of the said fact he is entitled for bail.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records for the purpose of granting the bail application.

9. No doubt incarceration is not the sole ground for granting bail to the applicant-accused, however, under our Constitution, speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 597 wherein it has been held that Article 21 confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and it is not enough to constitute compliance with the requirement of that Article that some semblance of a procedure should be prescribed by law, but that the procedure should be reasonable, fair and just.

10. Speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid Article confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

11. If a person is deprived of his li