ORDER : GANESH RAM MEENA, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused- appellant against the order dated 28.05.2024, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Alwar (for short ‘the trial Court’) in Bail Application No.220/2024(CIS No.211/2024) in connection with F.I.R. No.88/2024, registered at Police Station Aravali Vihar, District Alwar for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 388, 389 & 120B of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the learned trial Court dismissed bail application filed by the accused-appellant. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant submits that the accused-appellant has been implicated in this case based on false and fabricated story. Counsel further submits that the F.I.R. was registered by the complainant, who is a Police Constable, on 06.02.2024 as regards the alleged incident dated 27.04.2021. She further submits that the accused-appellant, who is a woman, was arrested on 16.02.2024 and the Police after completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet in the matter. Counsel also submits that the learned trial Court has framed charges against the accused-appellant along with co-accused on 23.07.2024 and the prosecution witnesses are not turning up before the learned trial Court for their examination and the accused-appellant, who is a woman, has to suffer the custody even without there being any fault on her part. Counsel further submits that it is a fundamental right of the accused-appellant to have speedy trial as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel also submits that the accused-appellant is a woman and is in custody since 16.02.2024 and co-accused Digamber Singh S/o Shri Vijendra Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.12.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No.3284/2024. Counsel further submits that the present appellant may be released on bail. Counsel has placed on record the order-sheets of the learned trial Court, which are taken on record. 3. On an intimation made through the S.H.O. of concerned police station, counsel for the complainant has put in appearance before this Court. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-appellant for releasing the accused-appellant on bail and submits that there are specific allegations against the accused- appellant. On an intimation made through the S.H.O. of concerned police station, counsel for the complainant has put in appearance before this Court. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the accused-appellant for releasing the accused-appellant on bail and submits that there are specific allegations against the accused- appellant. Counsel further submits that there are several other criminal cases pending against the accused-appellant and she is in habit of extorting money under threat of registration of cases and later on she enters into compromise. Counsel also submits that the criminal appeal filed by co-accused- Digamber Singh S/o Shri Vijendra Singh was allowed by this Court without there being any intimation to the complainant. 5. Considered the submissions made at Bar and also perused the challan papers and the material available on record. 6. On submissions of the counsel for the complainant that the appeal of the co-accused- Digamber Singh S/o Shri Vijendra Singh was disposed of without there being any intimation to the complainant, this Court summoned the record of S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 3284/2024 of co-accused- Digmber Singh S/o Shri Vijendra Singh from the office of learned Public Prosecutor. 7. On perusal of the record of aforesaid criminal appeal of co-accused- Digmber Singh S/o Shri Vijendra Singh received from the office of learned Public Prosecutor, it is found that the complainant was intimated through S.H.O. of Police Station Aravali Vihar, District Alwar vide letter dated 09.12.2024, as regards the filing/hearing of the criminal appeal No.3284/2024 as is evident from letter dated 09.12.2014 written by concerned S.H.O. to the Government Advocate. 8. The letter dated 09.12.2024, which is attached with the file of the Public Prosecutor's office in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.3284/2024, is now taken on record. 9. Further, on perusal of the order sheets submitted by counsel for the accused-appellant, it is borne out that the Police after completion of investigation in the criminal case registered against the present accused-appellant, submitted charge-sheet on 13.05.2024 and the learned Court below after taking cognizance against her alongwith co-accused on 19.06.2024, posted the matter for framing of the charges. The accused-appellant, who is in judicial custody, was not being physically produced before the learned trial Court and now her JC warrant was submitted. The accused-appellant, who is in judicial custody, was not being physically produced before the learned trial Court and now her JC warrant was submitted. The learned trial Court has to take this fact seriously that the accused was not being physically presented before it. 10. Finally on 23.07.2024 the charges were framed against the accused-appellant alongwith co-accused for offences under Sections 389 & 120-B IPC and also under Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST Act and the prosecution witness Nos.1 & 2 were summoned through bailable warrants for their examination for 07.08.2024. It has also come out from the order sheet that on 07.08.2024, the learned trial Judge has observed that summons have not been issued for the witnesses and also called for explanation and further ordered that witness Nos.1 & 2 be summoned through bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.1000/- for securing their presence on 04.09.2024. Again on 04.09.2024, no witnesses were present before the learned trial Court as the witnesses were not summoned. 11. Again on 24.09.2024, the prosecution witnesses did not turn up for their examination and fresh bailable warrants were issued for their appearance for examination. Again on 10.10.2024, the prosecution witnesses did not turn up and the learned trial Court observed that since the learned High Court has directed to examine the complainant on priority basis, fresh bailable warrants be issued for summoning the witnesses Nos.1 & 2. 12. Again on 19.10.2024, none of the witnesses appeared for examination and the learned trial Judge ordered to issue arrest warrants to the prosecution witnesses Nos.1 & 2 for their appearance. On 06.11.2024 also none of the prosecution witnesses was present before the learned trial Court and the Court observed that they may be summoned through arrest warrant. 13. Again on 11.11.2024 & then on 21.11.2024, none of the prosecution witnesses was present and the learned trial Court called for the explanation as to why the prosecution witnesses are not turning up even after issuance of arrest warrant for their appearance. 14. Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that inquiry or trial be concluded at the earliest. Section309 of the Cr.P.C is quoted as under:- Section 309. 14. Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that inquiry or trial be concluded at the earliest. Section309 of the Cr.P.C is quoted as under:- Section 309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings- (1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded: Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C or section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the inquiry or trial shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of filing of the charge sheet. (2) If the Court after taking cognizance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody: Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody under this section for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time: Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance no adjournment, no adjournment shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him.Provided also that- (a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party; (b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment; (c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though present in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness, the Court may, if thinks fit, record the statement of the witness and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as the case may be. Explanation 1- If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence, and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand. Explanation 2- The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted in include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused.” 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in 2022 Vol. 10 SCC, page 51 in para 49 & 50 has observed as follows:- “49. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., reported in 2022 Vol. 10 SCC, page 51 in para 49 & 50 has observed as follows:- “49. Seeking to impeach Warren Hastings for his activities during the colonial period, Sir Edmund Burke made the following famous statement in “The World’s Famous Orations” authored by Bryan, William Jennings, published by New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1906: “Law and arbitrary power are in eternal enmity. Name me a magistrate, and I will name property; name me power, and I will name protection. It is a contradiction in terms, it is blasphemy in religion, it is wickedness in politics, to say that any man can have arbitrary power. In every patent of office the duty is included. For what else does a magistrate exist? To suppose for power is an absurdity in idea. Judges are guided and governed by the eternal laws of justice, to which we are all subject. We may bite our chains, if we will, but we shall be made to know ourselves, and be taught that man is born to be governed by law; and he that will substitute will in the place of it is an enemy to God.” 50. Section 437 of the Code is a provision dealing with bail in case of non-bailable offenses by a court other than the High Court or a Court of Sessions. Here again, bail is the rule but the exception would come when the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds that the accused has been guilty of the offense punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Similarly, if the said person is previously convicted of an offense punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or more or convicted previously on two or more occasions, the accused shall not be released on bail by the magistrate.” 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2005 Vol. 7 SCC 387, has observed as follows:- “It is no doubt true that this Court has repeatedly emphasised the fact that speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Surinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2005 Vol. 7 SCC 387, has observed as follows:- “It is no doubt true that this Court has repeatedly emphasised the fact that speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Constitution. The aforesaid article confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the law. If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair, or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It has also been emphasised by this Court that the procedure so prescribed must ensure a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. It is conceded that some amount of deprivation of personal liberty cannot be avoided, but if the period of deprivation pending trial becomes unduly long, the fairness assured by Article 21 would receive a jolt. These are observations made in several decisions of this Court dealing with the subject of speedy trial. In this case, we are concerned with the case where a person has been found guilty of an offence punishable u/S 302 IPC and who has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Code of Criminal Procedure affords a right of appeal to such a convict. The difficulty arises when the appeal preferred by such a convict cannot be disposed of within a reasonable time.” 17. The Coordinate Bench of this court in S.B. Criminal Misc. VII Bail Application No. 3701/2022 (Savnta Vs. State of Rajasthan) , decided on 21.04.2022 has observed as under:- “In Vinod Bhandari v. State of M.P. , reported in (2015) 11SCC 502, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, considered the rights of an accused praying for bail pending trial and observed as under:- 12. It is well settled that at pre-convictionstage, there is presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of the allegation or the availability of material in support thereof are not the only considerations for declining bail. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of the allegation or the availability of material in support thereof are not the only considerations for declining bail. Delay in commencement and conclusion of trial is a factor to be taken into account and theaccused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period if trial is not likely to be concluded within reasonable time. Reference may be made to decisions of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan: (2005) 2 SCC 42 , State of U.P. v. AmarmaniTripathi: (2005) 8 SCC 21 , State of Kerala v.Raneef: (2011) 1 SCC 784 and Sanjay Chandrav. CBI: (2012) 1 SCC 40 . 13...… 14...… 15...… 16..… 17..… 18. It is certainly a matter of serious concern that the Appellant has been in custody for about one year and there is no prospect of immediate trial. When a person is kept in custody to facilitate a fair trial and in the interest of the society, it is duty of the prosecution and the Court to take all possible steps to expedite the trial. Speedy trial is aright of the accused and is also in the interest of justice....................." Notably, the accused is not responsible for the delay occasioned in the completion of trial. There are several cases where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail even at the stage of defence evidence. In Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).5397/2019 titled Ghanshyam Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted bail at the stage where trial was almost at the verge of completion and petitioners were given opportunities to put forth their defence by order dated 10.01.2020.” 18. In the present case, several opportunities have been granted to the prosecution to produce the witnesses but the prosecution failed to produce the witnesses even after issuance of bailable warrant as well as arrest warrant for securing the personal presence of prosecution witnesses, in view of the directions of this Court. 19. In the present case, several opportunities have been granted to the prosecution to produce the witnesses but the prosecution failed to produce the witnesses even after issuance of bailable warrant as well as arrest warrant for securing the personal presence of prosecution witnesses, in view of the directions of this Court. 19. This Court while considering the appeal of co-accused Digmber Singh S/o Shri Vijendra Singh, took into consideration the fact that prosecution witnesses were not turning up before the learned trial Court for their examination and allowed the criminal appeal with the observations as under:- 18. "Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and so also the observations of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Savanta (supra) and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court unhesitatingly observes that because of sluggish approach of the prosecution in producing witnesses before the learned trial court even after issuance of directions by this Court, the fundamental right of the accused-appellant for a speedy trial has been put to jolt, and, therefore, this court deems just and proper that the accused-appellant deserves to be released on bail." 20. The allegation levelled against the accused-appellant is that she is collusion with her brother Digamber Singh has extorted the money and committed the offence. This Court on perusal of the First Information Report, finds that the F.I.R. has been lodged by a Police Constable after a delay of about more than two and a half year. 21. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that the prosecution witnesses are not turning up for their examination before the learned trial Court and the right of the accused- appellant as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, further the fact that the accused-appellant is a woman and is in custody since 16.02.2024, this Court feels that the accused-appellant also deserves to be released on bail. 22. 22. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is allowed and the order dated 28.05.2024, passed by the Court below is set aside and it is ordered that the accused-appellant named above shall be enlarged on bail, provided that she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Judge for her appearance before the trial Court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.