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 1005/2019 2 Concerned Police Station Behror 3 District Bhiwadi 4 Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 143, 302 and 120-B of the IPC and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act 5 Offences added, if any Section 212 of the IPC 6 Date of passing of impugned order - 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that The complainant, Satyanarayan, filed a written report at Police Station Behror on 26.11.2019, stating that on 25.11.2019, he had gone to his sister’s residence in the village Gunti. Around 8:00–8:30 PM, his brother Bharat Singh informed him over the phone that Anil Yadav had been shot in the neck and chest by Chhotiya and three to four of his accomplices near the Haryana–Rajasthan border around 6:30–7:00 PM. Anil Yadav, grievously injured, had fallen on the roadside. Rinku and Pradeep immediately took him to Kailash Hospital, Behror. 2.1. The complainant, accompanied by his younger son Manoj, reached Kailash Hospital, where Anil Yadav was under medical treatment. He was found in an unconscious state, with gunshot injuries to his neck and chest, and in critical condition. Rinku and Pradeep informed the complainant that Anil Yadav had indicated, while en route, that the shooting was carried out by Chhotiya, a resident of Gugdiya; this statement was reportedly recorded on their mobile phones. 2.2. Due to the critical nature of the injuries, the attending doctors referred Anil Yadav to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Despite medical intervention, Anil Yadav was pronounced dead during treatment, and his body was preserved in the mortuary of SMS Hospital, Jaipur. A post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted, and the body was subsequently handed over as per protocol. 2.3. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 1005/2019 was registered under Sections 143 , 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3 /25 of the Arms Act, and an investigation was initiated. During the course of the investigation, the crime scene was inspected, the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted, and statements of witnesses were recorded. 2.4. During the investigation, the petitioner/accused and another individual were apprehended. During the course of the investigation, the crime scene was inspected, the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted, and statements of witnesses were recorded. 2.4. During the investigation, the petitioner/accused and another individual were apprehended. The petitioner/accused was found prima facie implicated under Sections 302 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act, and was taken into custody on 04.02.2020. The petitioner/accused has since been in judicial custody. 2.5. The investigation concluded with the submission of the charge sheet against the petitioner/accused under Sections 302 , 212 IPC and Sections 3 /25 of the Arms Act before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behror, and the case was committed to this Court for trial. On 19.02.2021, the formal charge under Section 302 was framed against the petitioner/accused. The trial is ongoing and evidence is being recorded by the prosecution. His second bail application being SBCRLMB No.15220/2023 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2024. Hence, the instant bail application. 2. 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. He is in custody since 04.02.2020. There are several flaws and laches in the case of the prosecution. 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 heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court feels that an under trial prisoner should not be kept confined for an indefinite period for no fault of them in impeding the course of trial. A perusal of the material revealing that the trial had been commenced in this matter in the year 2020 but owing to one or the other reason, the recording of the prosecution witnesses could not be completed. It is transpiring that out of the total projected prosecution witnesses, only nine could have been examined uptil now. A perusal of the material revealing that the trial had been commenced in this matter in the year 2020 but owing to one or the other reason, the recording of the prosecution witnesses could not be completed. It is transpiring that out of the total projected prosecution witnesses, only nine could have been examined uptil now. This Court feels that looking to the snail’s pace progress of the trial, it would still take a long time to reach onto a legitimate conclusion. It is also noticed that sincere endeavors have not been made by the trial Court in proceeding with the trial to get an early culmination of the same. 7. As per the law, 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 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. 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. It is well-nigh settled law that at pre-conviction stage, bail is a rule and denial of the same should be an exception. The purpose for keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction and to ensure that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him otherwise, as stated above, it is the rule of crimnal jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is proved. In the instant case, it has been around more than five and half years have elapsed since the accused was sent to jail and his rights and liberties are getting stifled as he is being kept incarcerated without any progress in the trial. An accused cannot be kept behind bars as an undertrial for an indefinite period. 9. 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 decided on 08.02.2024. The relevant part of which would be apt to reproduce here which reads 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. In view of the enunciation made regarding provisions for consideration of bail and looking to the fact that the petitioner is behind the bar more than five 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. Looking to the high probability that the trial may still take a long time to conclude this Court deems it fit to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 CrPC 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.