[2025:RJ-JP:38049] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6111/2025 Yashpal @ Sarpanch S/o Shri Bir Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/ o Mau, Police Station Pataudi, District Gurugram (Haryana) (At Present Lodged In The Bhondsi Jail, Gurugram (Haryana). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 17/09/2025 1. This bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.150/2020 registered at Police Station Kotkasim, District Bhiwadi for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 & 450 of IPC and Sections 3/25 & 5/27 of Arms Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that neither petitioner is named in the FIR nor in the statement of witnesses. Counsel submits that initially, co-accused namely- Chandram was arrested during the course of investigation and name of the petitioner surfaced for the first time during his interrogation. Thereafter, on 12.10.2021 arrest of the petitioner was made and since then, he is in judicial custody. Counsel [2025:RJ-JP:38049] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-6111/2025] submits that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date, only 14 witnesses have been examined out of 30 cited prosecution witnesses. He argues that according to the FIR, 4 to 5 persons were involved in commission of crime and after conducting test identification parade, Investigating Agency has already arrested five co-accused persons, who were identified by injured namely- Ramniwas. He further argues further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Counsel relies upon the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8523/2024, which reads as under: 6. “The High Court while rejecting bail had asked for conclusion of trial within 5 months. The 5 months period stipulated by the 2 High Court will expire at the end of this month but as noticed earlier, the prosecution proposes to examine 17 more witnesses. 7. An accused has a right to a fair trial and while a hurried trial is frowned upon as it may not give sufficient time to prepare for the defence, an inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial would infringe the right of an accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 8. It is not for nothing the Author Oscar Wilde in “The Ballad of Reading Gaol”, wrote the following poignant lines while being incarcerated: “I know not whether Laws be right, Or whether Laws be wrong; All that we know who be in jail Is that the wall is strong; And that each day is [2025:RJ-JP:38049] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-6111/2025] like a year, A year whose days are long.” 9. The incident in the present case occurred on 25.06.2020 and the petitioner was arrested soon thereafter on 26.06.2020. By now, 6 co-accused have been granted bail. As the prosecution wishes to examine 17 more witnesses, the trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date. 10. Considering the above and to avoid the situation of the trial process itself being the punishment particularly when there is presumption of innocence under the Indian jurisprudence, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner – Balwinder Singh. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the learned trial court.” 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as seven other cases have been registered against him. He further submits that role of the petitioner has been disclosed by the co-accused persons. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the fact that petitioner is in custody since 12.10.2021 and till date, only 14 witnesses have been examined out of 30 cited prosecution witnesses, as also considering the fact that according to the charge-sheet, petitioner was not present at the place of incident and he was arrested on the basis of interrogation of the co- [2025:RJ-JP:38049] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-6111/2025] accused persons which is evident from the observation made by the Investigating Agency, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Yashpal @ Sarpanch S/o Shri Bir Singh shall be released on bail provided he 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 Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. It is further directed that petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the trial Court and Investigating Agency and he shall not switch off his phone for longer period. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. [2025:RJ-JP:38049] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-6111/2025] 9. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/91