The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has granted bail to an accused in a murder case, highlighting that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial proceedings violate the fundamental right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Background
The accused was arrested in FIR No. 172/2023 registered at Police Station Diggi, Tonk, for offences under Sections 302, 396, and 460 IPC. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, as the FIR was initially filed against unknown persons.
A significant argument raised was that similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail by the High Court. The petitioner had remained in custody since January 9, 2024, and had undergone more than two years of incarceration. It was also pointed out that the trial was progressing at a slow pace, with only 17 out of 25 prosecution witnesses examined so far, indicating that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.
On the other hand, the State opposed the bail application, emphasizing the gravity of the offence and the evidence collected during the investigation.
Court’s Analysis: Article 21 and Personal Liberty
Justice Anil Kumar Upman, after considering the contentions of both sides, delivered a significant ruling rooted in constitutional principles. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner has been in custody since 09 January 2024 and that the slow pace of the trial constitutes a serious violation of his fundamental right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court dwelt at length on the sanctity of personal liberty, observing that it is a natural right — a priceless treasure — and its deprivation creates a profound sense of emptiness. The expression ‘Personal Liberty’ under Article 21 was described as being of the “widest amplitude,” encompassing freedom from physical restraint through incarceration and the broader right to live with dignity, which goes beyond mere animal existence.
Referring to the landmark constitutional precedent in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, the Court reiterated that Article 21, post that decision, protects personal liberty not only from executive action but from legislative action as well. Deprivation of liberty is only permissible where there exists a valid law, and the procedure prescribed thereunder is just, fair, and reasonable.
The Court further invoked the consistent line of Supreme Court jurisprudence holding that prolonged incarceration without trial violates the rights of an accused, and no statutory provision can curtail the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights. The Court stressed that liberty under Article 21 remains a critical factor inclining courts toward bail especially when the prosecution itself has failed to demonstrate promptness in examining its witnesses.
Decision and Bail Conditions
Weighing all facts and circumstances — the petitioner’s custody of over two years, the testimony of the IO already recorded, the bail already extended to co-accused, and the bleak prospect of an early conclusion to the trial — the Court allowed and The petitioner was directed to be released on bail.
Title: Balu Alias Ramavtar Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Upman
Case No: S.B. Crl. Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 3007/2026
Date of Judgment: March 17, 2026
JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP
