ORDER : 1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an 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 339/2021 2. Concerned Police Station Nokha 3. District Bikaner 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 302 & 201 of the IPC 5. Offences added, if any Sections 323 & 341 of the IPC 6. Date of passing of impugned order 27.03.2025 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 30.08.2021, complainant Bhanwar Lal submitted a written report to the SHO, PS Nokha alleging therein that from 26.08.2021 onwards his son Arjun is found missing and he made number of call on his mobile but were unanswered and he searched him but of no avail. He has submitted an application in this regard on 28.08.2021. On the very same day of lodging written report, in the evening he received an information from the police station that an unknown body is lying in the bushes near the Charkada Ki Rohi, whereupon he reached there and identified that body of his son. On the basis of which, an FIR aforesaid was lodged against unknown persons. 3. 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. 4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of record revealing that petitioner is behind the bars since August 2021 and this is his third bail application. At the time of rejecting second bail application being SBCRLMB No.10886/2024 decided on 04.09.2024, the learned trial Court was directed to expedite the trial within a period of six months, but there seems no progress in the trial as the same hasn’t been culminated. At the time of rejecting second bail application being SBCRLMB No.10886/2024 decided on 04.09.2024, the learned trial Court was directed to expedite the trial within a period of six months, but there seems no progress in the trial as the same hasn’t been culminated. Furthermore, the allegation that petitioner killed the deceased seems to be based on assumptions and personal perception because there is no eye witness of the incident. The evidence collected by the prosecution against the petitioner are subjected to scrutiny by the learned trial Court after taking on record the entire material but at this stage when charge sheet has been filed at least the niceties of the matter can be looked into for the purpose of just decision of the bail application. As on date out of total 23 witnesses only 9 have been examined till now and it seems that further more time will be taken in conclusion of the trial. 7. 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 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 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 of affording an opportunity to the prosecutor to prove the charges 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 beside the gravity of offence and quantum of sentence. 8. Delay in trial while keeping the accused in custody gives the accused a legitimate right to ask for release on bail. This Court has been of the view that for the purpose of substantiation only a reasonable period can be granted to the prosecution and pending trial an accused cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period. Dealing with the aforesaid issue, 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. This Court has passed an elaborated order in the matter of Lichhaman Ram @ Laxman Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5916/2023 decided on 08.02.2024; the relevant part of the said order is being reproduced 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 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. 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 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. In view of the above and considering the facts that the petitioner is behind the bars for more than more than three years and eight months, looking to the high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter. 10. 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.