Accused can’t languish in jail for years due to delayed trial: Raj HC grants bail to murder accused

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to a murder accused who has spent over five years in judicial custody, holding that an accused cannot be made to languish behind bars for an indefinite period merely because the trial is unlikely to conclude anytime soon.

Justice Farjand Ali, allowing the accused’s third bail application, observed that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution can be curtailed only through due process that is just, reasonable and fair, and that a sessions trial ought ordinarily to conclude within a reasonable period rather than stretch on for years.

the Court observed:

“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.”

The bail application was filed under Section 439 CrPC by the accused-petitioner, arraigned in connection with FIR No. 50/2021 registered at Police Station Mandwa, Udaipur, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 341, 323 and 34 IPC, later supplemented with Sections 148, 336 and 149 IPC. The prosecution’s case is that in 2021, the petitioner and one Vishnu allegedly inflicted an injury on the victim, Rajia, using an axe, following which the victim succumbed to his injuries. The Court noted that a bona fide property dispute existed between the parties, and that what actually provoked the assault was yet to be ascertained during trial.

Counsel for the petitioner, Kaushal Sharma and Vinay Singh, submitted that no case for the alleged offences was made out against the accused and that his continued incarceration was not warranted, contending that he had been implicated on the basis of conjectures and surmises. It was the petitioner’s third bail application, moved primarily on the ground that he had been in custody for over five years while the trial showed no sign of concluding in the near future.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the application, submitting that the case was not fit for enlargement of the accused on bail.

The Court held that when it comes to a criminal case, particularly a sessions case, the trial ought to commence and conclude within a session, meaning that a case instituted in July of a given year is ordinarily expected to conclude before August of the following year, and that while some extension of this period is understandable on account of witnesses and other unavoidable circumstances, in no stretch of imagination can such a period extend to five or six years. It reiterated that an accused pending trial is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that only a reasonable time can be granted to the prosecution to substantiate the charge.

A detailed discussion on the point had earlier been undertaken by the same Court in Lichhman Ram @ Laxman Ram v State, decided on Feb 08, 2024, extracts of which were reproduced in the order. The Court had then held that the nature and gravity of the offence, and the material available in support of it, are not the sole factors to be weighed while considering a bail application, and that the imperative of concluding trial within a reasonable period is equally significant, given the presumption of innocence available to an accused at the pre-conviction stage.

The Court also placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s observations in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, where Justice P.N. Bhagwati held that the expression “personal liberty” in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and covers a variety of rights that go towards constituting the personal liberty of a person, several of which have since attained the status of distinct fundamental rights.

Reliance was further placed on the Supreme Court’s order in Vickki Yadav v State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Crl.) No. 9430/2026, decided on May 25, 2026, where the accused had remained in judicial custody for nearly nine years as an under-trial prisoner. The Supreme Court, in that case, expressed disapproval of a High Court’s reading of an earlier precedent to the effect that bail is not normally to be granted once charges have been framed, and held that howsoever grave the crime, an accused denied the right to a speedy trial and languishing in jail for years through no fault of his own cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period.

Considering that the petitioner had remained in custody for over five years and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, Justice Ali allowed the bail application under Section 439 CrPC and directed that the accused be enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 along with two sureties of Rs 25,000 each, to the satisfaction of the trial court, for his appearance on all dates of hearing.

Title: Ganesh Alias Ganiya v State Of Rajasthan

Case No.: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 8324/2026

Citation: [2026:RJ-JD:28411]

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Kaushal Sharma, Mr. Vinay Singh

Counsel for respondent: Mr. NS Chandawat, Dy.G.A.