Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:18749] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IIIrd Bail Application No. 5896/2025 Arjun S/o Kishanlal, R/o Ward No. 16, Kahar Mohallan, Kaithun, Police Station Kaithun, District Kota Rural (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In Sub Jail, Ramganjmandi). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 05/05/2025
1. This third bail application has been filed by petitioner under Section 483 of the BNSS in connection with FIR No.85/2023 registered at Police Station Deoli Manjhi, District Kota for offence(s) under Sections 147, 341, 302/149 read with Section 120-B IPC. 2. It has been submitted by counsel for petitioner that second bail application was dismissed with liberty to file fresh after recording statements of two eye-witnesses Rahul (PW-11) and Naveen (PW-12), however, thereafter, police has made both eye- witnesses as co-accused in the present criminal case and has filed charge-sheet against them as well. It has further been submitted that there is no other eye-witnesses of the incident, which occurred accidentally and in the statements of Investigation Officers (PW-4 & PW-5), they have also admitted that there is no
[2025:RJ-JP:18749] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5896/2025] eye-witness of the incident. The recovery of knife on the information of petitioner has been made from the open place. Petitioner is in custody since 12.05.2023 and out of 41 prosecution witnesses, only 5 prosecution witnesses have been examined till now. 3. It has been submitted that the petitioner has a legal right for expeditious trial and since the trial is being delayed by the prosecution, the fundamental right of petitioner envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated. A reference of the recent order dated 09.09.2024, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.8523/2024 titled as Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, releasing the accused on bail due to non-conclusion of trial despite issuing directions that same is to be concluded within a period of five months, has been given. Therefore, in such circumstances, petitioner be released on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 5.
Taking into consideration the change in circumstances of the present case, after dismissal of the second bail application and the admitted fact that there is no eye-witness of the incident, which occurred accidentally, as much as out of 41 prosecution witnesses only 5 witnesses have been examined and the conclusion of trial will take its considerable time due to which the right of petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being infringed, petitioner is in custody since 12.05.2023 and there is no criminal antecedent of petitioner, but without commenting on
[2025:RJ-JP:18749] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5896/2025] merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the third bail application is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Arjun S/o Kishanlal shall be released 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. 7. However, in addition to the usual terms and conditions, it is hereby directed that: (i) Accused-petitioner shall not induce or influence or temper with any prosecution evidence/witness. (ii) Accused-petitioner shall not repeat the similar nature of offence. (iii) Accused-petitioner shall not leave District Kota without leave of the trial Court. (iv) In case, accused-petitioner is found involved in similar offence, during bail granted by this Court or breach of conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail, granted by this Court. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /3