[2025:RJ-JP:45251] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 4980/2025 Dharamraj S/o Bhagchand, R/o Dhanodakhurd, Police Station Sarolakalan, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (Confined At District Jhalawar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aaditya Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/11/2025 1. This third application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.94/2023 PS Sarola, District Jhalawar for offence under Section 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this case for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of IPC. 2. The petitioner had earlier filed his first bail application, which was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to renew the prayer for bail after examination of prosecution witnesses, namely, Neetu Kanwar and Shivraj. Subsequent to recording of statements of the aforesaid witnesses, the petitioner again moved a bail application. However, same was dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2024. The present, being the third bail application, has now been preferred primarily on the ground of prolonged incarceration, [2025:RJ-JP:45251] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-4980/2025] as the petitioner has remained in custody since 25.04.2023, thereby having undergone imprisonment for more than two and a half years. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case, and that the entire prosecution story rests solely upon circumstantial evidence, there being no direct eyewitness to the incident. It is further argued that the alleged recovery of certain stones on the information provided by the petitioner, and the presence of blood traces on those stones, are insufficient to conclusively connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. Counsel submits that the petitioner has been roped into this case merely because he was in a relationship with the co-accused, who happens to be the younger sister of the deceased. Notably, the co-accused, Ms. T, has already been enlarged on bail. 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 after rejection of second bail application only 6 witnesses have been examined till September 2025. Counsel submits that still 16 witnesses are yet to be examined. Counsel submits that considering the prolonged custody of the petitioner, absence of any direct evidence, and the parity in circumstances with the co-accused who has been granted bail, counsel prays that the petitioner be released on bail during the pendency of the trial in the interest of justice. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposes the bail application and sought dismissal of the bail application. He submits that the accused petitioner along with [2025:RJ-JP:45251] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-4980/2025] co-accused hatched a conspiracy to murder the deceased. It is contended that the accused petitioner pushed the deceased into a pond/well and threw 3-4 stones upon him due to which, the deceased expired. He also contends that the stones used by the accused petitioner in commission of the offence have also been recovered in pursuance of the information provided by him and as per FSL report, blood traces have been detected on these stones. The petitioner and the co-accused, were in love affair and deceased raised objection on this relationship. The co-accused is the sister of the deceased. He further submits that after rejection of second bail application, there is no substantial change in circumstances to entertain this third bail application. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 5. Upon careful perusal of the case record, it is observed that FIR contains no direct or specific allegations 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 31 listed witnesses, only 15 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 25.04.2023. From the [2025:RJ-JP:45251] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-4980/2025] sequence of events, there appears to be no indication that the petitioner is responsible for the delays in trial. The slow progress of the proceedings suggests that the conclusion of the trial is unlikely in the near future. Furthermore, the trial court has not shown adequate diligence in ensuring an early conclusion of the case. 6. 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. 7. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:45251] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-4980/2025] responsible for delay in trial, they cannot be kept in confinement for an indefinite period as an under-trial prisoner. 8. Considering the principles governing the grant of bail, the period of custody exceeding two and a half 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. 9. Accordingly, this third bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Dharamraj S/o Bhagchand, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.2,50,000/- each 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. 10. The observations made hereinabove are only for deciding this bail application and would not prejudice the trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /14