[2025:RJ-JP:8643] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 15972/2024 1. Pradhan S/o Shri Motishankar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Gujriya Kheda, Police Station Dai, District Bundi Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Sub Jail Nainwa District Bundi). 2. Jansilal @ Hansraj S/o Motishankar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Gujriya Kheda, Police Station Dai, District Bundi Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Sub Jail Nainwa District Bundi). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hakim Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 27/02/2025 1. Instant second bail application has been filed by petitioners under Section 483 B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No. 276/2023 registered at Police Station Nainwa, District Bundi for the offence(s) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 307 and 302 of IPC. 2. After rejection of the first bail application by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2024, statements of injured Manish and other eye witnesses namely Manish, Prahlad, Gulab Bai, Vinod Meena, Nait Ram and Sanjay have been recorded during course of trial. 3. It has been submitted by counsel for petitioners that the other co-accused namely Manraj, Shopal and Deepty have already [2025:RJ-JP:8643] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15972/2024] been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2025; the case of prosecution against present petitioners is on similar footing and petitioners are in judicial custody since 27.07.2023. Against Pradhan there are no previous criminal antecedents. Against Jansilal one criminal case is registered under Section 323 IPC wherein compromise has been acted upon. 4. Learned counsel submits that material witnesses have been examined, yet conclusion of trial may take a considerable time. He submits that the expeditious trial is a legal right of petitioners and since the trial is being delayed by the prosecution, the fundamental right of petitioners 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. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, however, could not distinguish the case of petitioners to the co- accused, who have already been released on bail vide order dated 27.01.2025. 6. Having heard counsel for petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record, considering the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the other co- accused namely Manraj, Shopal and Deepty have already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2025; petitioners are in custody since 27.07.2023 and conclusion of trial [2025:RJ-JP:8643] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15972/2024] may take considerable time, but without commenting on merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release petitioners on bail. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioners (1) Pradhan S/o Shri Motishankar& (2) Jansilal @ Hansraj S/o Motishankar shall be released on bail provided, each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /1