Prolonged incarceration without a speedy trial violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, serving as a valid ground for granting bail regardless of the gravity of the charges.

Order

1. These second bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.73/2023 registered at Police Station Langra, District Karauli for offences punishable under Sections 143 & 302 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 147, 302, 364 & 120B of the IPC.

2. The first bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners Lalpati @ Naine and Pushpendra were dismissed on merits vide orders dated 06.03.2025 & 10.09.2025, respectively. Now, these second bail applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioners.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that charge-sheet has already been filed and nothing has come on record which shows involvement of the accused petitioners in the alleged crime. It is also contended that co-accused Sonu has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025.

4. Arguing the case of the petitioner Lalpati @ Naine, counsel submits that no evidence is available on record to show that the petitioner caused injury to the deceased and he has been roped in this case with the aid of Section 120B of IPC. Counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with one Badam dumped the dead body of deceased Asharam in front of the house of the complainant. Counsel submits that the Police did not charge-sheet the said Badam. He further submits that the main allegation of assault is against co-accused Rinku, who is son of petitioner Lalpati @ Naine.

5. It is submitted that petitioner Lalpati @ Naine is in custody since 22.06.2023 and as such, he has already suffered incarceration of more than two years and eight months whereas petitioner Pushpendra is in custody since 06.03.2024 and as such, he has already suffered incarceration of about two years. It is contended that the trial is going at a snail’s pace as till October 2025, only 27 prosecution witnesses have been examined, out of 35 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 petitioners 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.

6. Per contra, learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted that looking to the gravity of offence and evidence which has come on record so far, the petitioners do not deserve indulgence of bail. They, thus, crave dismissal of these bail applications.

7. I have considered the contentions.

8. Admittedly, the petitioners are in custody since 22.06.2023 & 06.03.2024, respectively. The delay occurring in conclusion of trial is seriously violating the fundamental right of the speedy trial of the petitioners as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

9. The personal liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is basically