[2026:RJ-JP:36960]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9687/2026

CNR: RJHC020572002026 | URN: CRLMB / 17942U / 2026

Satveer S/o Hardam

----Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9808/2026

CNR: RJHC020589092026 | URN: CRLMB / 18140U / 2026

Teeta S/o Shri Vijarram

----Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9809/2026

CNR: RJHC020588682026 | URN: CRLMB / 18141U / 2026

Latoor S/o Devla

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. assisted by

Mr. Sarwat Alam

Mr. Ashutosh Naruka

Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP

Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar

Mr. Shivam Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

15/09/2026

1.The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of

filing applications under Section 483 BNSS at the instance of

accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are

tabulated herein below:

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (2 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

S.No. Particulars of the Case

1.FIR Number 342/2021

2.Concerned Police Station Kaman

3.District Bharatpur

4.Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 147, 148, 149,

323, 341, 307, 302, 120-B of

IPC and 3 & 25 of Arms Act.

5.Offences added, if any Sections 326, 427, 336 of IPC.

6.Date of passing of impugned

order

11.06.2026

2.These three bail applications have arisen out of the same

incident and the lawyers representing the parties are the

same and all three cases are listed today, thus with the

consent of the parties all are being decided by this common

order.

3.It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no

case for the alleged offences is made out against them and

their 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-petitioners and they have been made accused

based on conjectures and surmises.

4.Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail

applications and submits that the present case is not fit for

enlargement of accused on bail.

5.As it was observed by this Court while considering the bail

plea of co-accused Sahab Singh i.e., S.B. Crl. Misc. 2nd Bail

Application No. 3613/2024 decided vide order dated

23.10.2024, there were two incidents separate and at distinct

places. One pertaining to murder of deceased Devi Ram @

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (3 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

Pappa and in the second incident which took place in village

where large number of people made an assault over the

house of the victim family.

6.It would be apt to reproduce the consideration made by this

Court while granting bail to the co-accused Sahab Singh, the

relevant bail order dated 23.10.2024 is reproduced as

under:-

“1.The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by

way of filing the second bail application under

Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-

petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are

tabulated herein below:

S.No. Particulars of the Case

1.FIR Number 342/2021

2.Concerned Police Station Kama

3.District Bharatpur

4.Offences alleged in the

FIR

Sections 147, 148, 149,

323, 341, 307, 302 &

120-B of the IPC &

Section 3/25 of the

Arms Act

5.Offences added, if any Sections 326, 336 &

427 of the IPC

6.Date of passing of

impugned order

24.08.2023

2. The first bail application of the petitioner was

dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated

16.02.2024 passed in SBCRLMB No.1812/2024.

Hence, the instant bail application.

3.Briefly stated the facts of the case necessary for

disposal of the bail application are that a report came

to be lodged at the instance of Ramveer on 12.06.2021

alleging interalia that when his father was going to

Village Kama, in the mid-way, he was assaulted by ten

accused persons, who were armed with weapons. The

accused who inflicted injuries were Chandrabhan @

Chanua, Ramveer, Shyam Sunder, Jagat singh,

Ramavtar, Ram Prasad, Babli, Banwari, Ghanshyam

and Pritam. Accused Chandrabahn, Ramveer, Shyam

Sunder, Jagat Singh, Ramavtar were having iron rods

in their hands and rest of the accused were having

lathis in their hands. His father was brutally beaten up

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (4 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

and the said incident was witnessed by his uncle

Ramniwas, Ajeet and his cousin Mahesh. The victim

Devi Ram @ Pappa was taken to hospital. In a second

incident, some of the accused persons reached to

Village Mullaka, where an assault was made over the

family members of the victim. It is alleged that

amongst several other persons, the petitioner was also

a member of an unlawful assembly.

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 Public Prosecutor and

counsel for the complainant opposes the bail

application and submits that the present case is not fit

for enlargement of accused on bail.

6. I have heard and considered the submissions

made by both the parties and have perused the

material available on record.

7.After careful scanning of the material available on

record, it is revealed that there were two separate

incidents out of which in one incident, Devi Lal @

Pappa, the father of the complainant was all alone on

a Motorcycle Splendor and he was going to Village

Kama from his village Mullaka. In the midway,

between the Govt. Hospital, Kama and the Dak

Bungalow, Kama, ten persons made an assault upon

him, as a consequence of which, he received several

injuries and ultimately succumbed to death wherein in

the second incident, which was taken place at Village

Mullaka, some of the accused persons allegedly made

an assault upon the other family members of the

victim. The time and place of both the incidents are

different and rather it is not disernable that at what

point of time the second incident took place. Although

the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the second

incident which took place at Village Mullaka but none of

the victim of this incident received grievous injuries or

injuries which are dangerous to life.

8.Considering the overall facts and circumstances

of the case and looking to the nature of the incident,

the previous incident and inclusion of several other

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (5 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

persons in the second incident, it is felt that the

genuineness of the crime can only be discernible after

the entire evidence would be brought on record and

that task would be undertaken by the learned trial

Judge. As on date, what is revealing that the petitioner

was not present at the crime scene in which deceased

Devi Ram received fatal injuries. Indisputably, no

specific role has been assigned to the petitioner in

causing injuries to the deceased. His name finds place

in a separate incident in which neither any fatal

injuries is complained nor serious allegations are

levelled against him.

9.The another aspect of the matter is that the

petitioner is behind the bars since a long and there are

several prosecution witnesses out of which a very few

could have been examined till date. 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.

10.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. Dealing with the identical issue

where the trial had been protracted for unreasonable

period, an elaborate discussion has been made by this

Court while deciding the S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail

Application No.5916/2023 in the matter of Lichhman

Ram @ Laxman Ram Vs. State the relevant part of

which would be apt to reproduce here which read as

under:-

7. This Court feels that the nature and gravity of

offence and availability of material in support thereof

are not the only factors to be taken into account while

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (6 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

considering a bail application. The fact that trial is to

be concluded within a reasonable period of time is

imperative while considering grant of bail to an

accused. It is settled principle of criminal

jurisprudence that there is presumption of innocence

at the pre-conviction stage and the objective for

keeping a person in jail is to ensure his presence to

face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be

passed. This detention is not supposed to be punitive

or preventive in nature. An accused is considered to be

innocent until he or she or they are proven guilty in

the court of law.

8. As per the fundamental rights granted to every

citizen/person by the Constitution of India, the accused

cannot be expected to languish in custody for an

indefinite period if the trial is taking unreasonably long

time to reach the stage of conclusion. An under trial

prisoner, who is waiting for the trial to complete and

reach a conclusion about his guilt for the alleged crime,

is not only deprived of his right to a speedy trial but

his other fundamental rights like right to liberty,

freedom of movement, freedom of practising a

profession or carrying on any occupation, business or

trade and freedom to dignity are also hampered.

9. Life without liberty is like a body without soul.

Freedom is the open window through which pours the

sunlight of the human spirit and human dignity.

Personal liberty of the accused is sacrosanct and

quintessential to the very spirit and structure of a

civilisation. Jeremy Bentham, the great English jurist,

postulated that the greatest happiness of the greatest

number is the end of law. The concept of civil liberty is

embedded in individualism. This simply means that the

purpose of the state is to help every individual in

reaching their highest development and evolving into

the best personality, thereby reaching a point where

law and state are not required by the society. Thus,

when personal liberty of an individual is threatened,

his development is in peril which is a matter of great

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (7 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

concern. Sir Wiiliam Blackstone has deftly observed on

page 134 of the first volume of his book,

‘Commentaries on the Laws of England’ that,

"Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion,

of changing situation or moving one's person to

whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct,

without imprisonment or restraint unless by due

process of law".

Justice cannot be presumed to have been administered

merely on passing of a judgment of conviction and order of

sentence or a judgment of acquittal; rather administration

of justice shall be deemed to have been completed when

the trial is concluded within a reasonable period of time

and the accused as well as the complainant/victim are not

made to wait for years on end to know the result of the

trial.

10. One of the founding fathers and the Third President of

them United States of America, Thomas Jefferson, has

rightly said that, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action,

according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the

equal rights of others." Though the victim/complainant

party has the right to seek justice against an accused

person but that does not mean that the right of the accused

to a fair trial can get hampered. A fair trial is one which is

concluded within a reasonable period of time.

11. It is not just a fundamental right but also a human right

of every accused as incarceration for an indefinite period

pending trial is in contravention of the universal rights that

are imperative for us all sans any kind of discrimination.

Justice P.N. Bhagwati has embodied the spirit of the afore-

mentioned observation in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of

India (UOI) and Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 in the

following words:

“The expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is of

the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights

which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and

some of them have raised to the status of distinct

fundamental rights and given additional protection

under Article 19.”

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (8 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

12. No one is unaware of the fact that justice delayed is

justice denied. On one hand, if a victim has to wait for

years to see the perpetrator get his due and on the other

hand, if the accused is innocent and it is so decided that he

was not guilty for the crime as alleged by the prosecution,

then there is no justifiable answer that can put out the fire

that has been burning in the minds of the parties since the

very inception of the criminal proceedings.

13. A petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was

filed in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. Vs. Home

Secretary, State of Bihar, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

reported in 1979 SCR (3) 169, praying for the release of a

large number of men, women and children that were

languishing in jails in Bihar for offences which if found

guilty, were punishable by a sentence of not more than few

months. Following the creative deliverance passed in the

case of Maneka Gandhi (supra) which expanded the

scope of interpretation under Article 21 of the Constitution

of India, the right to a speedy trial was interpreted as being

implied in the broad gamut of rights that are borne out of

right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21.

Justice Bhagwati further expressed his anguish over the fact

that the bail system of India works on the rusty assumption

that monetary loss will deter an accused from fleeing from

justice and thus, it operates harshly against the poor and

indigent persons of the society. The burden of the period of

detention falls on the innocent people who are the members

of the family of the accused. A set of guidelines were

issued by the Apex Court in this case to ensure that

the courts subordinate to each of the High Courts

take lesser time to reach a legitimate conclusion in a

trial and that there should be greater access to bail

along with humane living standards for the under-

trials.

14. Subsequent to Hussainara Khatoon (supra), Hon’ble

the Supreme Court held that the right to speedy trial is

available at all the stages, be it the stage of investigation or

inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and even retrial, in Abdul

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (9 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

Rehman Antulay & Ors. Vs. R.S. Nayak & Ors. , reported

in AIR 1992 SC 1701. In addition to the above, it was also

held that a time limit cannot be set for the conclusion of

trial as there are many factors that impact the right to

speedy trial and the facts and circumstances of each case

need, to be considered separately. An order for conclusion

of trial within a fixed time is possible in specific cases where

the circumstances and nature of offence demand it but a

fixed time limit for all the trials cannot be imposed.

15. In the case of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI , reported in AIR

2012 SC 830, Hon'ble the Supreme Court had observed that

as the investigation is complete and charge sheet has

already been filed by the investigating agency, there

remains no necessity to keep the accused in custody for

further investigation. Being cognizant of the fact that the

alleged offences were such that if proved, they could cause

peril to the Indian economy, still Hon'ble the Supreme Court

upheld the right of an under-trial prisoner to be released on

bail. In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IV Bail Application

No.14677/2021 titled as Banwari Meena v. State of

Rajasthan, this Court has passed an elaborate order in

similar context holding that it is a well-established canon of

criminal law that there is presumption of innocence at the

pre-conviction stage and the, objective for keeping a person

in jail is to ensure his presence to face trial and to receive

the sentence that may be passed. This detention is not

supposed to be punitive or preventive in nature. In another

case titled Savanta v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal

Miscellaneous VII Bail Application No. 3701/2022), this

Court has held that over-incarceration of undertrial

prisoners, beyond reasonable period of time, is violative of

their fundamental right to a fair and speedy trial. Any trial

that is deemed fair should conclude in a reasonable period

of time.

16. While keeping an accused detained, the opportunity to

the prosecutor to lead evidence can only be given for a

reasonable period. The wider connotation of the phrase

‘reasonable period’ be understood to be one year because

the case is classified as a sessions case which would mean

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (10 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

that the like cases should commence and conclude within a

session, that is, one year. Even if an elastic interpretation of

the expression ‘reasonable period’ is taken on the pretext of

certain unavoidable circumstances, then it can only be

doubled and even in that situation, trial has to be

completed within two years while keeping an accused in

custody. Suffice it would to say that for the purpose of

determination as to whether the accused is guilty or not,

only a reasonable period can be awarded to the prosecutor

if the accused is behind the bars. The cases which are

classified as session case are purposefully directed to be

heard by senior officer of District Judge Cadre looking to his

experience and rank/grade/post. In criminal jurisprudence

prevalent in India, there is a presumption of innocence

working in favour of the accused until he is proven guilty in

the trial. The trial is conducted for the purpose ofm

affording an opportunity to the prosecutor to prove the

charge and only for the purpose of proving guilt or adducing

evidence on record, an unreasonable period of time cannot

be granted as the same infringes the fundamental rights of

an accused which are otherwise guaranteed by the

Constitution of India. While entertaining a bail plea, the

court of law is required to take into account the above-

mentioned aspect of the matter as well besides the gravity

of offence and quantum of sentence. After pondering over

the legal provisions made in the code of Criminal Procedure,

the law enunciated by Hon’ble the Supreme Court through

plethora of judicial pronouncements and upon deliberation

of bail jurisprudence, it is understood that the only thing

which a court of law is to ascertain while entertaining a bail

plea is whether the accused should be allowed to come to

the court to attend the judicial proceeding from his home

and he may be allowed to remain with his family and within

the society on the specific condition that on the stipulated

date of the hearing of the case, he will willfully attend the

court proceeding or he is such a person that even in the

pending trial, he should be detained, should not be allowed

to visit his family and should be lodged at a specified place

of detention so that on the day of hearing, he may be

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (11 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

brought to the court from the jail. In other words, it is to be

decided whether he may be allowed to eat, sleep and live

with his family like a man ordinarily does or he may be

allowed to eat, sleep and live in the jail. It all boils down to

this that whether the Court wishes to allow the accused to

come to the court to attend the proceedings from his home

upon furnishing his bonds and surety of independent

person(s)s or the court thinks that he cannot be allowed to

roam free and therefore, he should be detained so that he

may be brought before the court on the day fixed for the

hearing. This Court is of the considered view that this is the

only thing which is to be thought over and to be ascertained

while entertaining a bail plea. The main object of keeping a

person behind the bars pending trial is nothing more but to

ensure a smooth, unhindered, fair and speedy trial and that

he may be present to receive the sentence as may be

passed.

17. Courts should not lose sight of the fact that pre-

conviction detention has some punitive implications and the

purpose of detention before conviction is to secure their

presence at the trial and ensure their personal attendance

in cases where necessity dictates their arrest and jail is the

exception not the rule.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently passed a

judgment in Criminal Appeal No(s). 1525 of 2021 titled as

Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim

Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem Kumar Bhattacharya

v. National Investigation Agency vide order dated

01.12.2021 wherein looking to the aspect that the

fundamental right of the undertrial prisoner to have a

timely trial was getting violated due to long and, indefinite

period of incarceration, the trial court was directed to grant

the benefit of post-arrest bail in favour of the appellant.

19. In Union of India (UOI) Vs. K.A. Najeeb , reported in

AIR 2021 SC 712, Hon’ble the Supreme Court upheld the

order of the High Court of Kerala granting bail to an

accused and observed that had it been a case at the

threshold, the Hon’ble Court would not have paid heed to

the respondent’s prayer but looking to the length of time

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (12 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

that the accused has already spent in jail and the likelihood

of the trial taking still more time to conclude, they agreed

that the High Court was not left with any other option but to

release the accused on bail. The relevant portion of the

judgment is reproduced as below:

“An attempt has been made to strike a balance

between the Appellant's right to lead evidence

of its choice and establish the charges beyond

any doubt and simultaneously the Respondent's

rights guaranteed under Part III of our

Constitution have been well protected.”

20. In another recent case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs.

Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. , reported in AIR

2022 SC 3386, Hon’ble the Supreme Court took cognizance

of the fact that the jails of the country are over-flowing with

prisoners and that arrest, being a draconian measure that

curtails the liberty of the arrested individual, should be used

sparingly. It was also observed that accused can be

considered for enlargement on bail on the basis of

unreasonable delay being one of the grounds. The Apex

Court classified offences into four broad categories and

prescribed guidelines with respect to following statutory law

as well as precedents laid down by the Apex Court with

regard to Sections 41 & 41A, 87 & 88, 167, 170, 309(1)

among others, with the expectation that it would help in

unclogging the prisons and result in reduction of pendency

of bail applications.

21. The inmates who have spent years on end to see what

has been decided in their case have probably resigned to

their ill fate and become used to the confines of the four

walls of the prison. It reminds this Court of the reference

made to Dr. Manette’s predicament in the Charles Dickens’

novel ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ by Hon’ble the Supreme Court

in State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, reported in AIR 2011 SC

340 while dismissing the appeal filed against grant of bail to

the accused who was a doctor and had already spent 66

days in custody. In the book, Dr. Manette had spent such a

long time of eighteen years as an inmate that he forgot his

name, profession and other details about his life that

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (13 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

existed prior to him becoming a prisoner at La Bastille. This

Court is anxious over the fact that jails debilitate the

under-trial prisoners and if after the long wait, the accused

is ultimately acquitted, then how would the long years

spent by the under-trial in custody be restored to

him/her/them. The fact that the imprisonment of a family

member affects the whole family cannot be overlooked and

if long incarceration pending trial is considered to be harsh

on the accused, then it should also be considered to be

equally harsh on the family members of the accused. The

rule is that pre-conviction detention is not warranted by

law.

22. There have been repetitive pronouncements by this

Court as well wherein considering the fact of long

incarceration inter alia other aspects, bail has been granted

to accused persons. Indisputably, the petitioner has been in

custody since long and the protracted trial will violate his

fundamental right to a timely trial. 23. In Writ Petition

(Criminal) No 279 of 2022, titled Mohammed Zubair Vs.

State of NCT of Delhi & Ors , while granting bail to the

accused vide order dated 20.07.2022, the Apex Court

observed that the accused was trapped in a vicious cycle of

the criminal process where the process had itself become

the punishment.

24. Similarly, in cases where under-trial prisoners are made

to wait and the trial is prolonged, the procedure of criminal

proceedings itself becomes a punishment for such

detainees. If the provisions laid down in the Code of

Criminal Procedure are followed to the letter and not just in

spirit, there will be lesser room for grievance related to

speedy trial. Having noted the significance and development

of the right to speedy trial, it is also important to consider

the following factors while adjudicating a bail application

against the backdrop of the right to a speedy trial:

i) The delay should not have been a defence

tactic. Who has caused the delay is also to be

seen. Every delay does not necessarily

prejudice the accused.

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (14 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

ii) The aim is not to interpret the right to

speedy trial in a manner so as to disregard the

nature of offence, gravity of punishment,

number of accused and witnesses, prevailing

local conditions and other systemic delays.

iii) If there is a strong reason to believe that the

accused will surely flee from justice if released

on bail and it will be a hard task for the

investigating agency to re-apprehend him, then

the benefit of bail should not be extended in his

favour.

iv) If it is shown by placing compelling material

on record that the release of the accused may

create a ruckus in the society or that he will

create such a situation wherein the prosecution

witnesses will not come forward to depose

against him or that he may otherwise hamper

the evidence of prosecution in any other

manner, then utmost caution needs to be

exercised in such cases before granting bail to

the accused.

The (iii) and (iv) points are to be considered only when

strong and cogent evidence is placed on record or a

compelling reason in support has come to light but surely

not just on the basis of a simple, blanket submission made

by the counsel appearing on behalf of the

prosecution/complainant/victim.

25. While hearing a bail plea, if there appears the slightest

possibility of acquittal of the accused based on any of the

submissions made by counsel for the parties, then

there is no harm in inclining towards extending the benefit

of bail in favour of the accused so far as it is limited to the

justifiable disposal of the bail. It is a settled principle of law

that the defence is not required to prove its case beyond

reasonable doubt and it can rely on the principle of

preponderance of probability. In juxtaposition, the burden

to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt always lies upon

the prosecution except in exceptions prescribed by law.

Thus, whenever a doubt is raised against the story of the

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (15 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

prosecution, it needs to be considered objectively but

needless to say, it is to be considered only for the limited

purpose of deciding the bail application and should not

influence the trial court so as to adversely affect the

interests of either of the parties in any manner.

26. While adjudicating a bail plea, the Court should never

assume that the case put forth by the prosecution is

sacrosanct and true and the accused is guilty; however, the

same does not mean that the case of the prosecution

should be approached with an initial presumption of doubt.

Suffice it to say that if a substantial plea is raised at the

time of praying for bail, it can be considered tentatively for

the purpose of granting bail at that stage, without deeply

speculating the result of the trial as a dead end. In addition,

if material is placed on record, it needs to be considered.

27. Coming back to the point of protracted trial and

consequent expansion of period of incarceration, this Court

is of the firm view that the accused should be released on

bail if he has been incarcerated pending trial for more than

a reasonable period of time unless extraordinary and

overwhelming circumstances prevent the Court from doing

so.

28. The procedure of law is that the exact date of

imprisonment would commence from the judgment of

conviction and the date of order of sentence. The further

provision of law is that the period already undergone would

be set off against the period of sentence. The purpose of

keeping the accused behind bars is to ensure that the

accused would not flee from justice and to avoid the

apprehension that he may hamper the witnesses or tamper

with the prosecution evidence. True it is that the gravity of

offences and severity of punishment attached with the

crime form vital parts of consideration while adjudicating a

bail plea but the period of incarceration pending trial must

be a reasonable period. It is the duty of the prosecutor as

wells as of the Court to ensure that the prosecution

evidence is produced within a reasonable period which must

not be an unfair and unjust. In order to justify period of

incarceration pending trial, the aid of provision for setting

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (16 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

off period of incarceration suffered pending trial with the

term of imprisonment decided by the convicting Court in the

order of sentence cannot be taken in cases where the trial

went on for a long period of time and ultimately resulted

into acquittal.

29. The right to be freed from detention and get a fast

culmination of trial are liberties that every accused should

be able to enjoy and in cases where the delay is not caused

at the hands of the accused, he bears the brunt of the

follies of the criminal justice system.

30. The right to speedy trial has developed to become an

inalienable fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21

of the Constitution of India by way of a slew of judgments

passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, however, it has been

prevalent since times immemorial and finds mention even

in the Magna Carta Libertatum commonly called Magna

Carta, the royal charter of rights agreed to by King John of

England in around 1215 A.D. Among other conventions and

precedents, the text of Magna Carta was one of the major

inspirations that laid the basis for English Common Law and

the pre-eminent English luminaries like Lord Macaulay and

Sir James Stephen drafted our criminal legislation and

statutes. Clause 40 of the Magna Carta which reads as "To

no one will We sell, to no one will We deny or delay, right or

justice", paved the way for right to habeas corpus as well as

the idea of adjudication by the jury or the equals of the

accused. The idea that no accused person can be detained

indefinitely during the pendency of trial also sprang up from

this clause.

31. The matter needs to be looked at from a humanitarian

lens also. The accused is spending his time as an under-trial

in prison where the living conditions are depressing and

pitiable. The bellies of prisons all across the country are

bloated due to the humongous influx of prisoners in India.

The prisons are overcrowded to an unimaginable extent.

Nelson Mandela was the torch-bearer of the movement

against apartheid in South Africa and he had the following

words to say about his fabled incarceration at the Robben

Island Prison from 1964 to 1982:

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (17 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

“No one truly knows a nation until one has been

inside its jail. A nation should not be judged by

how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest

ones.”

Any prison that was built with the infrastructure to

hold a certain number of prisoners would be overpopulated

and congested if it would be required to house a percentage

of prisoners which is way beyond its capacity. Prisoners in

India sleep in turns as there is no space for all of them to

sleep at the same time. They are packed like sardines in the

cells and are deprived of basic needs like balanced diet,

sanitation, sewage, hygiene etc. From food and ration to

commodities like soap, detergent, toothpaste etc.,

everything is provided by the state in measured quantities

for the number of prisoners that the prison is designated to

hold and not for the number of prisoners that it actually

holds in reality. In such cases, an under-trial prisoner

cannot be subjected to such harsh and inhuman conditions

for eons.

32. The Amnesty International India’s Report titled Justice

Undertrial: A Study of Pre-trial Detention in India reveals

that as of 2019, 69% of the prisoners in Indian prisons are

undertrials which means that the under-trial prisoners are

more than twice in number than the convicted prisoners. As

per the report, the average occupancy rate of Indian jails is

114%. There are very few prisons that are equipped and

able to decide which under-trial prisoners are eligible for

release under Section 436A of the CrPC. As per the Prison

Statistics India 2020 published by the National Crime

Records Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs), Government of

India, 76.12% of the total prisoners across the country are

under trial prisoners. Nothing can be assumed about the life

expectancy of an accused, rather if an accused is made to

stay in prisons in such miserable conditions, it would lead to

more health problems and impair the health of the accused

person. While sharing his thoughts about his experience in

jail, Mahatma Gandhi had once said, “Men in prison are

‘civilly dead’ and have no claim to any say in policy.” Ours is

not a despotic nation rather it is a democratic nation which

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (18 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

proudly upholds the liberties of its citizens. Despite

Supreme Court guidelines, legal and executive reforms,

there is no significant improvement in the state of the

under-trials.

33. Law and society go hand in hand. A lawless society is no

better than a jungle. Right to life is not a bare right; it

means right to a dignified life and personal liberty and

includes in its ambit all aspects that help a person lead a

life of dignity. Any law which does not accommodate or

adapt to the evolution of the society seizes to serve its

purpose. When a person is detached from the society and

put in jail, he goes through a big change of social

environment. The present petitioner has spent seven long

years in prison while he awaits the verdict of his ongoing

trial. Though he has not yet been proved to be guilty but he

has spent all the seasons of last seven years in the jail

precinct; he has not been a part of any social gathering,

major family events, festivals and like occasions for seven

years and if he is finally acquitted after culmination of trial

then no court can give him back the time and reputation

that he has lost. There is no way to recompense the

accused who has spent a prolonged period pending trial in

case there is an acquittal waiting for him at the end of a

seemingly endless journey. No concept of solatium to an

under trial prisoner in case of acquittal exists in the statutes

of our country. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that if

under trial prisoners are released looking to the facts and

circumstances of the case, then there can be more space

for the inmates and better living standards in the jails. For

instance, if a jail is built to house 100 inmates only but it is

overcrowded to the extent of housing 200 inmates, then

release of under trial prisoners post consideration of

relevant factors would result in improved living conditions

for all prison mates.

34. Considering the above observations, specially the right

to speedy trial being a fundamental right, the over-

crowdedness and a skewed prison-prisoner ratio and the

rightful object of detaining an arrestee and in light of the

guiding pronouncements of the Apex Court on this issue;

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (19 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

this Court feels persuaded to take a liberal approach to

grant bail to the accused without deeply diving into the

niceties of the matter as well into the nature and gravity of

the offence. The long period of detention spent by the

accused in custody awaiting trial without any hope of

conclusion of trial in the near future has shaken the

conscience of this Court and thus, ends of justice would

meet in releasing him on bail. Needless to say, the above

observations are limited to the justifiable disposal of the

present bail application and shall not influence the trial

judge in any manner so as to adversely affect the rights of

either of the parties.

In view of the enunciation made regarding provisions

for bail and looking to the fact that the petitioner is behind

the bar since last around three and half years and noticing

that culmination of trial in a near future is not a seeming

fate and considering the overall facts and circumstances,

this Court is of the view that nature and gravity of offence

alone are not required to be considered at the time of

granting bail but at the same time, it has to be ensured that

the trial has to be concluded within a reasonable period if

the accused in languishing in jail therefore, without going

into the niceties of the matter it is felt that the right of the

accused to have a speedy trial should be protected. There is

high probability that the trial may still take a long time to

conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is

deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the

petitioners.

11.Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section

439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the

accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be

enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond

in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of

Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial

Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on

all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do

so."

7.After Sahab Singh was released on bail, two other accused

persons namely Rameshwar and Harichand were also

extended the benefit of bail. The case of the present

[2026:RJ-JP:36960] (20 of 20) [CRLMB-9687/2026]

petitioners are in no manner distinguishable to the case of

the above mentioned accused persons. Thus, to maintain

judicial discipline, consistency in judicial orders and on the

ground of parity these petitioners too deserve concession of

bail.

8.I have considered the submissions made by both the parties

and have perused the material available on record. There is

high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude.

In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed

suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners in the

present matter.

9.Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 483

BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-

petitioners as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on

bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the

sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to

the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance

before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and

when called upon to do so.

10.A copy of this order be placed in each file.

(FARJAND ALI),J

3-5/ANMOL