The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial is unjustifiable, warranting bail even under stringent statutes.

Order

22/10/2024

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing the instant 3rd application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. The first and second bail applications being SBCRLMB Nos.4114/2022 & 6417/2024 were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 14.12.2023 & 29.05.2024. While deciding the 2nd bail application, this Court directed the trial to record the statement of Seizing Officer on priority basis. Now, the Seizing Officer has been examined. Hence, the instant bail application.

3. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that on 17.07.2021, while on patrolling duty, Vijay Kumar, SHO, PS Sangariya upon suspicion when Anil Kumar was being searched, 70 strips containing 50 tablets each total 4,000 Tramadol Hydrochloride tablets, 10 strips containing 50 tablets of Calvidol-100 SR were recovered from his bag. The total weight of the recovered medicinal drug was 3 Kg 200 gms. On the basis of the above recovery the petitioner was arrested and samples were taken by the IO from the recovered articles and sent the same to the FSL.

4. 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. 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.

5. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. Though the second bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2024 passed in SBCRLMB No.6417/2024 but the petitioner has filed instant third bail application because out of total 14 witnesses, two witnesses have been examined in the trial till date, thus, looking to the snail pace progress of the trial, he has again approach this Court for protecting his liberty.

8. Now it is not in dispute that the petitioner is behind the bar in this case since 17.07.2021. It is a case of the prosecution that upon apprehended in suspicious circumstances on 17.07.2021 by the SHO, P.S. Hanumangarh, total 4,000 tablets weighing 3 Kg. 200 were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The charge-sheet has been filed way back and the trial has also been commenced long ago but no endeavours have been made to conclude it.

9. It is a firm view of this Court that an under trial prisoner cannot be incarcerated for an indefinite period. Only a reasonable time can be granted to the prosecution to prove its case and at the same time, the accused cannot be left languishing in jail for want of evidence against him as he required to be presumed innocent until the guilt is proven.

10. Normally, trial of a sessions case is completed within a period of one year from its commencement, however, for some unavoidable and inevitable circumstances, the period can be extended but keeping the accused detained in jail for around three and half years for the purpose of production of evidence is detrimental to the interest of accused detained in jail.

11. This Court has made an elaborate discussion with regard to bail of an under trial accused on the ground of delay in culmination of the trial. This Court feels that if the accused is under detention, it is obligatory for the prosecution to complete the trial within a reasonable period. This Court has passed an elaborated order dated 08.02.2024 in the case of Lich