[2025:RJ-JP:5087] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 5th Bail Application No. 1453/2025 Pawan Kumar @ Praveen Yadav S/o Shri Ram Singh Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Seharpur, Tehsil Narnaul, Police Station Sadar Narnaul, District Mahendragarh Haryana, At Present Tenant House of Deshraj Yadav, Village Nasibpur, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendragarh, Haryana. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur From 30.09.2021) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Mithlesh Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarfarz Hyder Khan through VC Mr. Sumit Kumar, SPP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 05/02/2025 1. This 5th bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioner in connection with FIR No.132/2021 registered at Police Station Banipark, District Jaipur (West) wherein he is charged for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302 & 34 of IPC & 3/25 of Arms Act & charge-sheeted under Sections 302, 120-B & 212 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after disposal of the 4th bail application of the petitioner, indulgence of bail has been granted to the principal accused-Ashish Shekhawat who was the shooter and who caused the death of the deceased by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail application No.12898/2024 vide order dated 20.12.2024. [2025:RJ-JP:5087] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-1453/2025] Counsel submits that subsequently the other co-accused Jayraj Singh has also been granted bail vide order dated 23.01.2025. Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is on better footing in comparison to the case of the Ashish Shekhawat. Counsel submits that looking to the long incarceration of the petitioner and looking to the fact that the prosecution has to examine in all 64 witnesses out of which 31 witnesses have been recorded so far and the trial is proceeding at a snail's pace. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest and trial will take its own time to conclude, therefore indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the gravity of the matter and allegations levelled against the petitioner, four times his bail application has been rejected by this Court on different occasions. Counsel submits that out of 65 witnesses now 33 witnesses have been recorded so far and the trial is proceeding in a speedy way so far. Counsel submits that if at all there is any delay, the prosecution is not responsible for the same, rather the co- accused persons are causing delay. Hence under these circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence of bail. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the main shooter who caused the incident-Ashish Shekhawat has already been granted indulgence [2025:RJ-JP:5087] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-1453/2025] of bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court with the following directions:- “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 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 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 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." [2025:RJ-JP:5087] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-1453/2025] 6. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that indulgence of bail was granted to the main accused- Ashish Shekhawat vide order dated 20.12.2024 and indulgence of bail was granted to the co-accused Jayraj Singh by this Court vide order dated 23.01.2025, and since the case of the petitioner is at par with the case of the co-accused Jayraj Singh, this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view. Looking to the fact of that the petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest and trial will take its own time to conclude and without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and appropriate to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S. 7. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Pawan Kumar @ Praveen Yadav S/o Shri Ram Singh Yadav, arrested in connection with 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 GARIMA /290