[2025:RJ-JP:48169] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 15738/2025 Ranjeet S/o Hagama, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Jaisinghpura, Vi- jay Nagar. (At Present In Central Jail, Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh for Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/11/2025 1. This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.246/2022 registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ajmer, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this case before the concerned Court. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2024. Now, this second bail application has been filed. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that nothing has come on record which shows involvement of the [2025:RJ-JP:48169] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-15738/2025] accused petitioner in the alleged crime. It is contended that petitioner is in custody since 13.06.2022 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of nearly three years and five months. It is contended that trial is going at a snail’s pace as till date, only 27 witnesses have been examined out of 31 cited prosecution witnesses and thus, trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He also contends that this delay occurring in conclusion of trial is seriously violating the fundamental right of speedy trial of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The period of custody is always relevant consideration for grant of bail. When a trial get prolonged, it is not open for the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused on the ground that the charges are very serious. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. It is submitted that looking to gravity of offence and evidence which has come on record so far, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail. He thus, crave dismissal of this bail application. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since 13.06.2022 and thus, he has served incarceration of nearly three years and five months. Further, when the second bail applications of the co- accused namely- Raju @ Rajmal Gurjar & Bheru Lal Gurjar were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 09.04.2025, specific directions were issued to the trial Court to make all endeavour to conclude the trial on or before 31.10.2025, [2025:RJ-JP:48169] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-15738/2025] but the trial has not been concluded yet and till date, only 27 witnesses have been examined out of 31 cited prosecution witnesses and thus, trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. The delay occurring in conclusion of trial is seriously violating the fundamental right of the speedy trial of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. The personal liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is basically a natural right. No one would like to lose his liberty. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. 8. The expression 'Personal Liberty' in Article 21 of the Constitution is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a person and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19 of the Constitution. 'Personal Liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution primarily means freedom from physical restraint of person by incarceration or otherwise. The concept of "right to life and personal liberty" guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the "right to live with dignity" and it does not mean mere animal like existence of life. After the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision rendered in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, Article 21 of the Constitution now protects the right of life and personal liberty of citizen not only from the executive action but from the legislative action also. A person can be deprived of his life and personal [2025:RJ-JP:48169] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-15738/2025] liberty if two conditions are complied with, first, there must be a law and secondly, there must be a procedure prescribed by that law provided that the procedure is just, fair and reasonable. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in catena of the judgments that prolonged incarceration without trial is violative of rights of an accused and the Court should step in to protect him and no provision can take away the power of constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights. Prolonged incarceration is a valid ground for granting bail in the Indian judiciary system, particularly when coupled with the anticipated length of the trial. The right to liberty under Article 21 is a critical consideration, and Courts should incline to grant bail to prevent undue hardship particularly when prosecution is not showing promptness in producing witnesses. However, the nature of the offence, potential risks associated with releasing the accused, and the overall context of the case must be carefully evaluated. 10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 13.06.2022 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as 4 witnesses are yet to be examined, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 11. Consequently, this second bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Ranjeet S/o Hagama arrested in connection with FIR No.246/2022 registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ajmer shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond [2025:RJ-JP:48169] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-15738/2025] of Rs.3,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.1,50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the 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. 12. It is made clear that the accused petitioner shall not involve in any other offence during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in the concerned local police station in the first and third week of every month till trial is concluded. 13. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 14. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 15. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 16. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /156