Point of Law: Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Hans Raj Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 3.1.2015 in Case Crime No. 294 of 2014 u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506, 452, 307, 308, 304 IPC, P.S. Raniganj, District Pratapgarh. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

3. Sri Mishra has filed questionnaire being issued from the learned trial court dated 22.4.2022, the same is taken on record.

4. At the very outset the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since the present bail application being fourth bail application, therefore, he shall not advance any arguments or raise any ground which could have been taken at the time of rejection of first, second or third bail application. He has submitted that he shall argue the present bail application on a limited ground to the effect that the present applicant is in jail since 3.1.2015, about seven years and four months and despite the specific directions have been issued by this Court twice to conclude the trial within time frame, there was no good progress in the trial inasmuch as out of total 15 prosecution witnesses nine prosecution witnesses have been examined, out of them all fact witness (PW-1 to PW-7) have been examined and in given circumstances there is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, the period of incarceration of the present applicant and the progress of trial may be considered in view of dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 and SLP (Crl) No. 3610 of 2020 enlarge the present applicant on bail.

5. Sri Mishra has drawn attention of this Court towards the certified copy of the questionnaire which indicates that nine prosecution witnesses have been examined and the next date has been fixed for 25.4.2022 for examination of other prosecution witnesses.

6. The first bail application was rejected by Hon. Mahendra Dayal, J. (since retired) on 29.3.2016 (Annexure No. 3). The second bail application was rejected by Hon. Prashant Kumar, J. on 25.7.2018 (Annexure No. 4) and the third bail application has been rejected by Hon. Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, J. on 2.7.2021. In terms of orders of Hon. the Chief Justice dated 13.11.2018 if any Hon'ble Court is not sitting at the place where any bail application is listed which has already been rejected by him or her, the regular Court may hear such bail application, therefore, the present bail application has been put up before this Court.

7. While rejecting the second bail application on 25.7.2018 this Court has observed as under:

“However, it appears that the applicant is in custody since 03.11.2015, thus, the court below is directed to expedite the trial and if possible, conclude the same, within six months.”

8. While rejecting third bail application on 2.7.2021 this court has observed as under:

“However, having regard to the fact that the applicant is detained in prison in this case for the last seven years and only five prosecution witnesses have been testified before the trial court, the trial court is directed to conduct the trial of the case pending before it by fixing at least two dates in a week and ensure that on all dates fixed, the remaining prosecution witnesses are examined. The trial court is further directed to conclude the trial within six months from today.”

9. In all the three rejection orders this Court has briefly considered the facts and circumstances of the issue in question.

10. While rejecting third bail application on 2.7.2021 this Court has taken cognizance of the fact that by that time five prosecution witnesses had been examined, therefore, this Court was of the view that the trial sho