[2025:RJ-JP:3815] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12867/2024 Hanuman S/o Jagdish, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Dangarthal, Police Station Niwai, District Tonk Presently Residing At Maharishi Gautam Nagar, Beelwa, Tonk Road Jaipur, Police Station Shivdaspura, District Jaipur. (The Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In District Jail Tonk). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Panchariya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 27/01/2025 1. This bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No.153/2024, registered with the Police Station Niwai, District Tonk for offences under Sections 143, 323, 308, 452 & 504 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 17.03.2024 and as per the averments made in the FIR, no specific overt-act has been assigned to him. Counsel further submits that the trial Court has framed the charge against the petitioner on 29.08.2024, however, ever after repeated directions of the trial Court, the prosecution witnesses are not turning up for examination. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has the right of speedy trial as provided under Article 21 of Constitution of India but since the witnesses are not turning up [2025:RJ-JP:3815] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12867/2024] for examination, the accused-petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the bail application and has submitted explanation that they have tried their level best to examine the prosecution witnesses but for one reason or other, the witnesses could not appear. 4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 5. As per the averments made in the FIR, no specific overt-act has been assigned to the petitioner and out of total 17 witnesses only one witness has been examined by the trial Court so far. 6. On perusal of the order sheets of the trial Court, this Court finds that even after repeated summons to the prosecution witnesses, they are not turning up and on each day fixed for their examination, the witnesses have been found to be absent. 7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and the delay in trial without there being any fault of the accused-petitioner who is in custody since 17.03.2024, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before the trial Court or any other Court to which the matter is [2025:RJ-JP:3815] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12867/2024] transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Satyendra/48