[2025:RJ-JP:3313] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Fourth Bail Application No.1233/2025 Jayraj Singh S/o Shri Jai Kumar Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Plot No. 8, Gulab Marg, Prem Nagar, Khatipura Road, Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur From 30.09.2021) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Dr.Mithilesh Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sarfaraz Hyder Khan, Special PP (through VC) with Mr.Sumit Kumar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 23/01/2025 1. This misc. fourth bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioner in connection with the FIR No.132/2021, registered at the Police Station Banipark, District Jaipur (West), wherein he is charged for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302 & 34 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of the second bail application of the petitioner by this Court, the accused-Ashish Shekhawat @ Akshay Singh was granted indulgence of bail vide order dated 20.12.2024 by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, while deciding S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12898/2024. Counsel submits that thereafter, the third bail application of the petitioner was [2025:RJ-JP:3313] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-1233/2025] submitted, but at the relevant time, the aforesaid order dated 20.12.2024, was not available as the same was not uploaded on the website of this Court, hence, under these circumstances, the said order could not be brought into the notice of this Court and accordingly, the third bail application filed by the petitioner was also rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.01.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the main accused-Ashish Shekhawat @ Akshay Singh has been granted indulgence of bail and the petitioner has been chargesheeted with the aid of Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC, alleging that he was involved in hatching a conspiracy, hence, under these circumstances, the case of the petitioner is on better footing in comparison to the case of Ashish Shekhawat @ Akshay Singh, who was the main accused and who has been granted indulgence of bail vide order dated 20.12.2024. Hence, it is prayed that the same indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer of misc. fourth bail application and submits that at the time of hearing of the bail application of the main accused-Ashish Shekhawat @ Akshay Singh, the correct facts were not brought into the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Counsel submits that at the time of submission of charge-sheet, there were around 64 witnesses, out of which 36 witnesses have been examined and in the meantime, a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-Pradeep Yadav with an addition of four more witnesses. Counsel submits that since the other two co-accused persons Vishnu and Lokesh were absconding, hence under these [2025:RJ-JP:3313] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-1233/2025] circumstances, charge-sheet was submitted against them under Section 299 CrP.C. with addition of more witnesses. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, in all there are around 64 prosecution witnesses out of which 36 witnesses have already been examined. Counsel submits that the Trial Court is proceeding with the matter on day to day basis and there is no delay on the part of the prosecution rather the delay has been caused at the instance of the accused-person, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail and the instant bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of the main accused- Ashish Shekhawat @ Akshay Singh indicates that as per the calendar of charge-sheet there were 60 witnesses, out of which statements of 31 witnesses were recorded and due to filing of the supplementary charge-sheet, 20 more witnesses were added and the Court was of the view that on account of delay in conducting the trial and on account of long incarceration of the said accused, indulgence of bail was granted to him, with the following observations in Paras 6 to 8:- "6. Perusal of the material revealing that the FIR has been lodged against the unknown persons. The appreciation of the circumstantial evidence is a tedious task and it can only be done when the entire material is brought on record before the trial Court and uptil now out of 60 witnesses, only 31 could have [2025:RJ-JP:3313] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-1233/2025] been examined in the trial and due to filing of supplementary charge sheet, 20 more witnesses have been added. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent, except the present one. While hearing a bail application, this Court is not supposed to comment over the quality and credibility of evidence, since the same may influence the case of any of the parties. What is the undisputed fact is that the petitioner is behind the bars in this case since 14.10.2021 and since then he is in continuous custody. From the course of proceeding, it can be presumed that the petitioner is nowhere responsible for the delay occurring in the smooth process of trial. Thus, this Court feels that looking to the snail’s pace progress of the trial, it would still take a long time to reach onto a legitimate conclusion. It is also noticed that sincere endeavors have not been made by the trial Court in proceeding with the trial to get an early culmination of the same. 7. This Court observes that the nature and gravity of the offence, alongside the evidentiary materials presented, are not the sole determinants in adjudicating a bail application. The expeditious conclusion of the trial within a reasonable time-frame is an essential consideration when deliberating the grant of bail to an accused. It is a well-entrenched principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that the presumption of innocence remains operative at the pre-conviction stage. The primary objective of incarcerating an accused pre-trial is to secure their presence for trial and to ensure that he/she/they are available to serve the sentence imposed upon him/her/them. Such detention is not intended to be punitive or preventive in nature and an accused cannot be detained for an indefinite period as an [2025:RJ-JP:3313] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-1233/2025] individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a Court of law. 8. In adherence to the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India, it is impermissible to subject an accused to indefinite incarceration if the trial is protracted beyond reasonable limits. An under-trial prisoner, awaiting the conclusion of the legal process to ascertain their culpability, is deprived of the right to a speedy trial. This delay impinges upon several fundamental rights, including the right to liberty, freedom of movement, the right to pursue a profession, and the right to dignity, thereby violating the constitutional guarantee of fair and just treatment" 7. Finally, it was observed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the concluding part of the order which read as under:- "In view of the enunciation made regarding provisions for bail and looking to the fact that the petitioner is behind the bar since around three and half years and noticing that culmination of trial in a near future is not a seeming fate, therefore, without going into the niceties of the matter it is felt that the right of the accused to have a speedy trial should be protected. There is high probability that the trial may still take a long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:3313] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-1233/2025] court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so." 8. Looking to the fact that indulgence of bail has already been granted to the main accused-Ashish Shekhawat @ Akshay Singh by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by detailed observations made in the order dated 20.12.2024, this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view and reject the present bail application filed by the present petitioner as he has been charge- sheeted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. Hence, under the changed circumstances, the same indulgence of bail is granted to the petitioner as well. 9. Consequently, this misc. fourth bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Jayraj Singh S/o Shri Jai Kumar Singh, who is arrested in connection with the aforementioned FIR, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/389