Accused Cannot Be Kept Behind Bar In Pending Trial For Want Of Production Of Evidence Against Him: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court observed that an accused cannot be kept behind bars in a pending trial for want of production of evidence against him.
The court said that only a reasonable period can be granted to the prosecution to lead the evidence to substantiate the charges.
The Court allowed the bail application of an accused in custody for his trial under Section 302 of the IPC. the Bench explained that the Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial and the same cannot be snatched from an accused for the reason of “seriousness or heinousness” of the crime.
A Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed, “Looking to the snail’s pace progress of the trial, it can be assumed that a further more time will be consumed in completion of the trial. As on date, it cannot be speculated that how more time will be taken in completion of the judicial proceedings. This Court is of the view that an accused cannot be kept behind the bars in a pending trial for want of production of evidence against him. Only a reasonable period can be granted to the prosecution to lead the evidence so as to substantiate the charge.”
Advocate Mohd. Umar Farooq appeared for the petitioner, while PP Babu Lal Nasuna represented the respondents.
The accused had filed an application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for the grant of bail. The accused was under trial after an FIR was lodged against him under Sections 302, 201, 323, 341 and 34 of the IPC.
The defence had argued that no case for the alleged offences was made out against the accused and his incarceration since 2021 was not warranted. It was submitted that there were no factors that may work against grant of bail to the accused as he had been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
The Court referred to the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in Lichhman Ram @ Laxman Ram v. State (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5916/2023) which discussed the right to bail in cases of protraction of trial. The Co-ordinate Bench had observed that “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.”
In Lichhman Ram @ Laxman Ram (Supra), it was held, “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.”
The High Court stated that the right to have a speedy trial was guaranteed by the Constitution and the same could not be snatched from an accused for the reason of “seriousness or heinousness of the crime.”
“In all cases, it is imperative upon the prosecution to adduce its evidence at the earliest, if the accused is languishing in jail,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Bench observed that “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.”
Accordingly, the Rajasthan High Court allowed the bail application.
Cause Title: Kailash Chand v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:30106)
