HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 10754/2024 Pradeep Kumar S/o Hanuman Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Nihaloth, Police Station Pancherikalan, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In District Jail, Jhunjhunu). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sweta Soni for Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/01/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS. 2. F.I.R. No. 209/2021 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Pancherikalan, District Jhunjhunu for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Later on, charge-sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC. 3. On 21.03.2024, the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on merits. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel further submits that the trial is going at a snail’s pace as witnesses are not turning up for their deposition. In support of this contention, he has shown copy of the ordersheets (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10754/2024] of the trial court. He argues that the delay occurring in trial cannot be attributed to the accused petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 27.12.2021. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. Thus, bail should not be granted. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. The personal liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is basically a natural right. No one would like to lose his liberty. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. 7. The expression 'Personal Liberty' in Article 21 of the Constitution is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a person and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19 of the Constitution. 'Personal Liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution primarily means freedom from physical restraint of person by incarceration or otherwise. The concept of "right to life and personal liberty" guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the "right to live with dignity" and it does not mean mere animal like existence of life. After the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision rendered in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, Article 21 of the Constitution now protects the right of life and personal liberty of citizen not only from (3 of 4) [CRLMB-10754/2024] the executive action but from the legislative action also. A person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty if two conditions are complied with, first, there must be a law and secondly, there must be a procedure prescribed by that law provided that the procedure is just, fair and reasonable. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in catena of the judgments that prolonged incarceration without trial is violative of rights of an accused and the court should step in to protect him and no provision can take away the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights. Prolonged incarceration is a valid ground for granting bail in the Indian judiciary system, particularly when coupled with the anticipated length of the trial. The right to liberty under Article 21 is a critical consideration, and courts should incline to grant bail to prevent undue hardship particularly when prosecution is not showing promptness in producing witnesses. However, the nature of the offence, potential risks associated with releasing the accused, and the overall context of the case must be carefully evaluated. One of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time. The court has also to take into consideration the other facts and circumstances such as the interest of the society. In the present case, it is apparent from the record that witnesses are not turning up for recording their evidence and therefore, for securing their presence, bailable warrants have been issued. This shows lethargic attitude of the prosecution in producing its witnesses. The petitioner is in custody since 27.12.2021 and there is no immediate prospect of (4 of 4) [CRLMB-10754/2024] completion of trial in near future. 9. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties especially looking to the period of custody, which is more than three years and trial will take further time in its conclusion but without commenting anything on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 10. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Pradeep Kumar S/o Hanuman 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. 11. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J ANANDTANWAR/45