[2025:RJ-JP:8393] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 683/2025 Krishan Kumar S/o Hanuman Prasad, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Kalakota, Police Station Sadar Neem Ka Thana, Tehsil And District Neem Ka Thana. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Neem Ka Thana). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vidhut Kumar Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 25/02/2025 1. Instant second bail application has been filed by petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No. 110/2023 registered at Police Station- Neem Ka Thana Sadar, District- Neem Ka Thana for offence under Section 302 of IPC. 2. It has been argued by counsel for petitioner that petitioner has not been named in the FIR and on the basis of circumstantial evidence, he has been implicated in the present criminal case. After rejection of first bail application, statements of material witnesses, including complainant- Lilaram, father of deceased- Kailash, uncle of deceased- Maliram and prosecution's eye witnesses, namely, Rameshwar and Madan Lal etc. have been recorded and nothing incriminating direct evidence against the petitioner, has come on record. Eye witness- Rameshwar (PW-10) [2025:RJ-JP:8393] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-683/2025] has turned hostile and other witnesses declined to be the eye witnesses. 3. It has been pointed out by counsel for petitioner that petitioner was implicated, in respect of committing murder of a minor boy of 10 years namely Kamlesh, allegedly for the reason that he saw him, maintaining illicit relation with one Smt. Dholi Devi, wife of Maliram. The incident is of 05.03.2023, at the time of twilight and there is no eye witness of that incident and merely because a sniffing dog barked at the petitioner and the petitioner ran away from there, he has been implicated in the present criminal case. It has been submitted that petitioner is in custody since 07.03.2023 and there are no criminal antecedents of petitioner; although as many as 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined, but sessions' trial has not concluded so far, rather conclusion of same may take considerable time. Counsel for petitioner submits that the expeditious trial is a legal right of petitioner and since the trial is being delayed by the prosecution, the fundamental right of petitioner 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 No (Crl.) No.8523/2024 titled Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, releasing the accused on bail due to non-conclusion of trial despite issuing directions that the same is to be concluded within a period of five months. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 5. Heard counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:8393] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-683/2025] 6. Having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the facts that petitioner was implicated on the basis of circumstantial evidence and among material witnesses, examined during course of trial, there is no eye witness; one eye witness has turned hostile; petitioner is behind bars since 07.03.2023 and conclusion of trial will take considerable time, hence, in order to save the fundamental right to life and liberty of petitioner, following the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Balwinder Singh (Supra), but without commenting on merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, the present second bail application is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Krishan Kumar S/o Hanuman Prasad shall be released on bail provided, he furnishes 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 his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so and his presence is not warranted in any other criminal case. 8. However, it is directed that the petitioner shall not leave the State of Rajasthan without permission of the Court and shall not tamper with and influence the remaining prosecution witnesses. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/1