Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no doubt this Court
on the earlier occasion rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner on merit vide order dat
ed 25.11.2014 passed in BLAPL No.19691 of 2014, but in the meantime though more than two years
have elapsed and the petitioner is already in custody for a substantial period, the charge in
the aforesaid case is yet to be framed. In such premises, he submits to release the petitione
r on bail in view of the law laid down in the case of Leti @ Jayadeb Roy and Anr. and Brundaba
n Rana Vrs. The State, reported in 71 (1991) CLT 813 wherein it has been held that expeditious
trial is the Fundamental Right of the accused placing reliance on the case of Hussainara Khat
oon Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1360, more so, when nothing is there indicati
ng the fact that the petitioner-accused has contributed in delay in disposal of the aforesaid
case and nothing being there indicating the fact that he shall abscond and/or tamper with the
prosecution evidence, if allowed to go on bail, notwithstanding the earlier rejection of praye
r for bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State, however, makes objectio
n to the prayer for bail of the petitioner placing reliance on the case of Kalyan Chandra Sark
ar Vrs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr., reported in AIR 2004 SC 1866, wherein their Lord
ship in the Apex Court have held that mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period
of incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to enlarge on bail, nor the fact tha
t the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with
the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail, when the
gravity of the offence alleged was severe and there were allegations of tampering with the wit
nesses by the accused during the period he was on bail.
