ORDER : FARJAND ALI, J. 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 192/2022 2 Concerned Police Station Nokha 3 District Bikaner 4 Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 302, 307, 450, 147, 148, 149 IPC & Section 27 of the Arms Act 5 Offences added, if any Section 120-B of the IPC 6 Date of passing of impugned order 19.03.2025 2. The concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR are that on 10.05.2022, at about 11:15 AM, the complainant Hajariram lodged a written report before Smt. Manjeet Kaur, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Nokha, at the Mortuary Room of PBM Hospital, Bikaner. In his report, he averred that he resides along with his family in a dhani situated within his agricultural fields at Himmatser. His daughter Geeta had been married to Om Prakash, son of Jeevaraj Bishnoi, resident of village Kanwaliser, District Nagaur. However, since Om Prakash is deaf, mute, and mentally incapacitated, Geeta has been residing at her parental home. It was further alleged that Jeevaraj, father-in-law of Geeta, had persistently been coercing the complainant’s family to send Geeta with him and had, on multiple occasions, issued dire threats of abduction and annihilation in the event of non-compliance. On the evening of 09.05.2022, the complainant and his family members retired to bed after dinner in their dhani. 2.1. At about 3:00 to 3:30 AM on 10.05.2022, three vehicles arrived and halted in front of their dhani. Upon hearing the commotion, the complainant observed that Jeevaraj s/o Kojaram, Bhanwarlal s/o Kojaram, Shivnarayan s/o Kojaram, Sunil s/o Shivnarayan, Rajendra s/o Jeevaraj, Poonam s/o Shivnarayan, Ramsingh s/o Shivnarayan, Richhpal s/o Devilal Bishnoi, Hariram s/o Ramkaran, Dhanraj s/o Ramkaran, Kailash s/o Rajaram Bishnoi, and four to five unidentified accomplices forcibly intruded into the premises. 2.2. The assailants were armed Jeevaraj carried a pistol, Bhanwarlal and Shivnarayan possessed guns, Rajendra was armed with a pistol, while the others wielded barsiyas and lathis. Without any provocation, they opened indiscriminate fire. The complainant’s son Rameshwarlal, in a bid to escape, was targeted by Jeevaraj, Rajendra, and Shivnarayan, who discharged their firearms, causing multiple gunshot wounds on his back, resulting in his collapse. 2.3. Without any provocation, they opened indiscriminate fire. The complainant’s son Rameshwarlal, in a bid to escape, was targeted by Jeevaraj, Rajendra, and Shivnarayan, who discharged their firearms, causing multiple gunshot wounds on his back, resulting in his collapse. 2.3. Thereafter, Bhanwarlal and Dhanraj fired shots towards the complainant, Sharmila (wife of Rameshwarlal), Manju (daughter of Rameshwarlal), Sachin (son of Rameshwarlal), and the complainant’s wife Dhudi, who narrowly escaped by concealing themselves in the darkness. As Geeta was away pursuing her studies and could not be located, the miscreants fled the scene. Upon reaching Rameshwarlal, the complainant found him lying lifeless, having succumbed to multiple firearm injuries sustained during the assault. On the basis of the above, the aforesaid FIR has been filed and petitioner alongwith other co-accused were arrested. Hence the instant bail application. 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.The record unmistakably reveals that the petitioner was arrested on 13.05.2022 and has since remained in continuous judicial custody for a period exceeding three years. Upon a scrupulous perusal of the case record and a judicious appraisal of the material amassed during investigation, this Court finds substantial merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner Kailash. Though his name finds mention in the First Information Report, a careful and discerning analysis of its contents demonstrates that no explicit, precise, or incriminating allegation has been levelled against him to establish that he was armed with any weapon, used a firearm, or inflicted any fatal injury upon the deceased. The lethal gunshot wounds, as per the prosecution narrative, have been specifically ascribed to the co-accused Jivraj, Rajendra, and Shivnarayan, thereby exonerating the petitioner, at least prima facie, from any direct or active participation in the homicidal assault. 6.1. The lethal gunshot wounds, as per the prosecution narrative, have been specifically ascribed to the co-accused Jivraj, Rajendra, and Shivnarayan, thereby exonerating the petitioner, at least prima facie, from any direct or active participation in the homicidal assault. 6.1. Moreover, it emerges from the investigation record that no firearm, ammunition, or other lethal weapon was recovered from the possession or at the instance of the petitioner. This fact, viewed in conjunction with the general tenor of the allegations, prima facie lends considerable credence to the defence contention that the petitioner was not an active perpetrator of the attack but, at most, a passive onlooker or peripheral participant, whose mere presence at the scene may have been misconstrued as complicity. 7. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The primary object of detaining an undertrial is to ensure his availability for the due conduct of the trial and, if found guilty, for the pronouncement of sentence. Such detention, however, is not intended to be punitive or preventive in nature, for it would otherwise transgress the foundational presumption of innocence that underlies the entire edifice of criminal law. 8. The right to a speedy trial is now firmly entrenched as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is wholly impermissible for an accused to languish in custody for an indefinite duration merely because the prosecuting agency has failed to ensure the expeditious progression of trial proceedings. Prolonged incarceration not only erodes the presumption of innocence but also impinges upon other inviolable constitutional guarantees, including the right to personal liberty, freedom of movement, and the dignity of the individual. 9. While the gravity of the offence and the severity of the potential punishment are undeniably relevant factors, they cannot, in isolation, justify the denial of bail. Equally critical is the pace and progress of the trial. The inordinate delay in recording the testimony of witnesses and the absence of tangible advancement in the proceedings operate heavily in favour of granting bail to the petitioner, particularly where the trial shows no imminent prospect of conclusion. 10. The expression “reasonable period” within which a criminal trial ought to be completed must be contextually and pragmatically interpreted. In a sessions trial, proceedings should, as a rule, commence and conclude within one year. 10. The expression “reasonable period” within which a criminal trial ought to be completed must be contextually and pragmatically interpreted. In a sessions trial, proceedings should, as a rule, commence and conclude within one year. Even allowing for procedural exigencies or unforeseen delays, an outer limit of two years may be deemed reasonable. Beyond such period, continued incarceration of an undertrial, without substantial progress in the case, constitutes a manifest infraction of fundamental rights and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. 11. Courts, therefore, must maintain a delicate equilibrium between the seriousness of the offence and the constitutional mandate of a fair, expeditious, and humane trial. The prolonged detention of an undertrial, without adjudication of his guilt or innocence, amounts to a travesty of justice. Once an accused, after enduring years of confinement, is ultimately acquitted, the irretrievable loss of liberty and time cannot be compensated by any judicial mechanism. 12. It is by now a well-settled proposition that bail is the rule and jail the exception at the pre-conviction stage. The jurisprudential core of criminal law dictates that no individual should suffer punishment without trial and conviction. Hence, continued pre-trial incarceration, especially in the face of unwarranted procedural delays, is antithetical to the rule of law and the principles of natural justice. It is, however, clarified that the foregoing observations are purely tentative and have been rendered solely for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application. The Trial Court shall be at full liberty to independently assess the evidence brought on record during the course of trial, uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove, while arriving at its own findings on merits. 13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the protracted and uncertain timeline of the trial, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter. 14. 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.