1. Bail application for murder charge under Section 302 IPC; investigation complete; co-accused enlarged on bail. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 548
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J.
Balu Alias Ramavtar Son Of Prema - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 3007 of 2026
Decided On : 17-03-2026
Important Points
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, serving as a valid ground for granting bail, even in serious offences, especially when co-accused have been released.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 396 and 460 - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Bail - Prolonged incarceration without trial - Personal liberty is a priceless treasure and a natural right, the sanctity of which is the fulcrum of any civilized society - The expression 'Personal Liberty' under Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and primarily means freedom from physical restraint by incarceration or otherwise; it includes the right to live with dignity (Paras 7 and 8).
(B) Fundamental Rights - Right to speedy trial - Prolonged incarceration without trial is violative of the rights of an accused and constitutional courts are empowered to grant bail on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights - Such incarceration is a valid ground for granting bail, particularly when coupled with the anticipated length of the trial and a lack of promptness by the prosecution in producing witnesses (Para 9).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested and charged under Sections 302, 396 and 460 of the IPC. In custody since January 2024, the petitioner sought bail on the grounds that the trial was proceeding slowly, with only 17 out of 25 prosecution witnesses examined by January 2026. It was further submitted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and that several co-accused had already been enlarged on bail.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner had been in custody for over two years and two months. It found that the delay in the conclusion of the trial seriously violated the fundamental right to a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Given the period of custody and the fact that co-accused were already on bail, the court deemed it just to release the petitioner.
Issues: Whether prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of the trial, resulting in the violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, justify the grant of bail despite the gravity of the offences.
Ratio Decidendi: Prolonged incarceration without trial is a violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This violation serves as a valid ground for granting bail, especially when the trial is unlikely to culminate in the near future and parity exists as co-accused have already been released.
Result: Second bail application allowed.
(B) Fundamental Rights - Right to speedy trial - Prolonged incarceration without trial is violative of the rights of an accused and constitutional courts are empowered to grant bail on the grounds of violation of fundamental rights - Such incarceration is a valid ground for granting bail, particularly when coupled with the anticipated length of the trial and a lack of promptness by the prosecution in producing witnesses (Para 9).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested and charged under Sections 302, 396 and 460 of the IPC. In custody since January 2024, the petitioner sought bail on the grounds that the trial was proceeding slowly, with only 17 out of 25 prosecution witnesses examined by January 2026. It was further submitted that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and that several co-accused had already been enlarged on bail.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner had been in custody for over two years and two months. It found that the delay in the conclusion of the trial seriously violated the fundamental right to a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Given the period of custody and the fact that co-accused were already on bail, the court deemed it just to release the petitioner.
Issues: Whether prolonged incarceration and the slow pace of the trial, resulting in the violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, justify the grant of bail despite the gravity of the offences.
Ratio Decidendi: Prolonged incarceration without trial is a violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This violation serves as a valid ground for granting bail, especially when the trial is unlikely to culminate in the near future and parity exists as co-accused have already been released.
Result: Second bail application allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shantnu Bansal, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shantnu Bansal, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claims false implication and delayed trial; prosecution opposes citing gravity of offence and evidence. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Prolonged incarceration without trial violates right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Prolonged incarceration is a valid ground for bail, especially when trial prolongs and co-accused are bailed. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Second bail application allowed; petitioner released on bail with conditions including sureties and monthly presence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
6. Does prolonged incarceration without trial violate the right to speedy trial under Article 21?
Yes, prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to speedy trial and courts should grant bail to uphold fundamental rights. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 )
7. Is prolonged incarceration a valid ground for granting bail in the Indian judiciary system?
Yes, prolonged incarceration is a valid ground for granting bail, especially when trial is delayed and prosecution does not produce witnesses promptly. (Para 9 , 10 )
8. What conditions must be met to deprive a person of life and personal liberty under Article 21?
There must be a law prescribing a procedure that is just, fair, and reasonable. Both conditions must be complied with. (Para 8 )
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
