[2025:RJ-JP:45336] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 11241/2025 Mukesh Kumar Khiyani S/o Ramesh Kumar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Plot No. 4C, Dwarka Nagar, Gali No. 4, Chaurasiyawas Road, Ajmer. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Peush Nag For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/11/2025 1. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.875/2022 registered at Police Station Christianganj, District Ajmer (Raj.) for offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Section 304B of IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025. Now, material witnesses have been examined in this case and thus, this second bail application has been filed. 3. According to the prosecution story, on 23.11.2022, an FIR was registered on the basis of a written report submitted by [2025:RJ-JP:45336] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-11241/2025] complainant- Roni Das stating therein that his sister was married to the petitioner on 29.10.2022, but petitioner has been harassing her since the very beginning of the marriage for bringing less dowry. This morning, when he called his sister and she did not answer the phone, he went to her house. The neighbours told him that petitioner had gone somewhere on a scooter carrying something in a sack and their house was locked. He suspected that petitioner might have done something wrong to his sister. On the basis of these facts, the FIR was registered for the offence punishable under section 304B of IPC. During the course of investigation arrest of the petitioner was made on the same day at 6:50 PM. It is submitted that dead body of the deceased was also recovered on the same day at 7:40 PM on the basis of information furnished by him under Section 27 of Evidence Act. Furthermore, the next day, on his disclosure, the weapon of offence, a knife was recovered from his house. Additionally, CCTV footage collected during the course of investigation shows that the petitioner is carrying a sack on the scooter. On the basis of all these evidence, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 304B of IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, and he is currently facing trial for offences punishable under Section 304B IPC (alternatively, for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC) and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 4. The present second bail application has now been preferred primarily on the ground of prolonged incarceration, as petitioner is in custody since 23.11.2022, thereby having undergone imprisonment for about three years. Learned counsel for the [2025:RJ-JP:45336] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-11241/2025] petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and all the evidence against him have been fabricated. Counsel further submits that neighbours of the deceased’s have not supported the prosecution story and they have been declared hostile. Further, brother and mother of the deceased have also denied the prosecution’s story and clearly stated that the police had informed them before 5:00 PM on 23.11.2022 that body of the deceased had already been recovered and kept in the mortuary. Counsel submits that testimony of mother and brother of the deceased clearly shows that the evidence of recovery of dead body on the basis of information furnished by the petitioner has been fabricated by the police. He further submits that the recovery of the knife holds no significance because the place from where the knife has allegedly been recovered had already been inspected by the police one day earlier, which is evident from the police daily diary report (Roznamcha Rapat). He also argued that the CCTV evidence does not connect the petitioner to the alleged crime, as the police witness clearly stated that control of the cameras was with a private company, and DVD was directly handed over to the officer. The witness admitted that the certificate under Section 65B was drafted by the officer, and he signed it only at the officer’s request, without having received any special training regarding it. It is further submitted that the trial is progressing at a very slow pace, and there appears to be little likelihood of its early conclusion in the near future as till September 2025 only 16 witnesses have been examined and 10 more witnesses are yet to be examined. Counsel submits that [2025:RJ-JP:45336] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-11241/2025] considering the prolonged custody of the petitioner, the absence of any direct evidence, and looking to admission of the mother and brother of the deceased with regard to recovery of the dead body, the counsel prays that the petitioner be released on bail during the pendency of the trial in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposes the bail application and sought dismissal of the bail application. He submits that wife of the petitioner died within a month of marriage and at the time of death she was living with the petitioner. He further submits that after rejection of first bail application, there is no substantial change in circumstances to entertain this second bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 7. Upon careful perusal of the case record, it is observed that the FIR contains only suspicion against the petitioner. The record reveals only a suggestion of suspicion, unsupported by explicit evidence. The assessment of circumstantial evidence is a complex exercise that can be effectively undertaken only when the entire material is placed before the trial Court. As of September 2025, out of 26 listed witnesses, only 16 have been examined. The petitioner possesses no criminal antecedents apart from the present case. This Court deems it inappropriate, at the stage of hearing a bail application, to comment upon the quality or credibility of the evidence, since such observations may unduly influence the proceedings. It stands undisputed that the petitioner has remained in custody continuously since 23.11.2022. From the [2025:RJ-JP:45336] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-11241/2025] sequence of events, there appears to be no indication that the petitioner is responsible for the delays in the trial. The slow progress of the proceedings suggests that the conclusion of the trial is unlikely in the near future. 8. This Court further observes that the nature and gravity of the offence, though relevant, are not the sole considerations in adjudicating a bail application. The expeditious conclusion of a trial within a reasonable time is a vital factor when considering bail. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the presumption of innocence endures until conviction. The primary purpose of pre-trial detention is to ensure the accused’s appearance at trial and, if convicted, to enable execution of the sentence, not to impose punitive or preventive detention. An accused cannot be incarcerated for an indefinite period, for every individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. It is constitutionally impermissible to subject an under-trial prisoner to indefinite detention merely due to judicial delays. Prolonged incarceration infringes upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including the right to personal liberty, freedom of movement, livelihood, and human dignity. The right to a speedy trial is, therefore, an inseparable component of the right to life and personal liberty. 9. This Court takes note of the coordinate Bench’s observation in Bail Application No. 12898/2024, Ashish Shekhawat @ Akshay Singh vs. State, wherein it was held that if the accused is not responsible for delay in trial, they cannot be kept in confinement for an indefinite period as an under-trial prisoner. [2025:RJ-JP:45336] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-11241/2025] 10. Considering the principles governing the grant of bail, the period of custody of about 3 years, the petitioner’s clean antecedents, and the apparent improbability of early conclusion of the trial, this Court finds it appropriate to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner. The fundamental right of the accused to a speedy trial must be protected, and the prolonged detention in this case would amount to a denial of that right. 11. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Mukesh Kumar Khiyani S/o Ramesh Kumar shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty 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. 12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /16