[2025:RJ-JP:20858] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 10232/2024 Rajesh Meena @ Raju S/o Shri Mangalchand, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Gram Doodhawala, Post Jeetawala, Tehsil Bassi, P.s. Kanota, Jaipur. (Presently Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.S. Rajpurohit, PP Mr. Jitendra Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI (Through Video Conferencing) Order 16/05/2025 1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 286/2021 2. Concerned Police Station Kanota 3. District Jaipur (East) 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 323, 341 & 307/34 of IPC 5. Offences added, if any Sections 302 & 120B of IPC 2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in [2025:RJ-JP:20858] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10232/2024] the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. Indisputably, the petitioner has been languishing in jail for the last four years, and the trial is not progressing. Out of a total of thirty-eight witnesses, only seven have been examined so far. Looking at the snail’s pace at which the trial is proceeding, it can reasonably be speculated that several more years may be consumed before arriving at a legitimate conclusion. 6. The co-accused, Rohit and others, have already been enlarged on bail. The eyewitness account of the incident is not available, and at this stage, the submission cannot be ignored that the circumstances brought against the petitioner are neither definite in tendency nor conclusive in nature, and do not point clearly towards his guilt. 7. Be that as it may. This Court is of the considered opinion that an accused should remain in custody pending trial only for a reasonable period. If the case is triable by a Sessions Court, the trial should ideally be completed within a session, which generally means within one year. In special circumstance- [2025:RJ-JP:20858] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10232/2024] such as a large number of prosecution witnesses, limited court working days, the unavailability of lawyers, and other unavoidable situations- the time for completion of trial may be reasonably extended. However, under no stretch of imagination can such delay be justified for a period exceeding four years. 8. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter. 9. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged 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. (FARJAND ALI),J Samvedana/9