HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No.2182/2025 Rajendra Yadav @ Tillu S/o Late Shiv Ratan Yadav, aged about 47 Years, R/o Plot No. B-95, Nehru Nagar, Panipech Tiraha, P.S. Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur From 05.10.2021) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Mithlesh Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarfaraz Hyder Khan, Sp. PP (through VC) with Mr. Sumit Kumar and Mr. Mirza Shoaib JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/02/2025 1. This fourth bail application under Section 483 BNSS 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 and 302/34 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. 2. The third bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.10.2024 granting liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer of bail after recording of the statements of material witness. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of total 65 witnesses, statements of 38 witnesses have been (2 of 5) [CRLMB-2182/2025] recorded so far. Counsel submits that after passing of the aforesaid order dated 22.10.2024, the main accused Ashish Shekhawat has been granted indulgence of bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024, while deciding SB Criminal Bail Application No.12898/2024. Counsel submits that subsequently, the indulgence of bail has already been granted to the other two co-accused persons namely Jayraj Singh and Pawan Kumar by this Court vide orders dated 23.01.2025 and 05.02.2025 respectively. Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is on better footings in comparison with the case of co-accused Ashish Shekhawat, to whom indulgence of bail has already been granted and the case of the petitioner is at par with the case of other two co- accused persons namely Jayraj Singh and Pawan Kumar. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is in long incarceration and he is in custody since last more than three and half years and trial will take its own time to conclude, therefore, under the changed circumstances, same indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner as well. 4. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case and after rejection of the third bail application of the petitioner vide order dated 22.10.2024, a liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after recording of the statements of material witnesses. Counsel submits that the other material witnesses are yet to be examined. Counsel submits that the prosecution (3 of 5) [CRLMB-2182/2025] cannot be blamed for the delay, as 38 witnesses have already been examined out of total 65 witnesses. Counsel submits that the defence is responsible for the delay and the prosecution is making all possible endeavors to conclude the trial, therefore, under these circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence of this Court 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 record indicates that the third bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 22.10.2024 with liberty to renew his prayer for bail after recording the statements of the material witnesses. After passing of the aforesaid order, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to the main accused namely Ashish Shekhawat, against whom allegation of causing murder of the deceased is there, with the following observations in para 6, 7 and 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 been examined in the trial and due to filing of supplementary chargesheet, 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 (4 of 5) [CRLMB-2182/2025] is that the petitioner is behind the bars in this case since14.10.2021 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 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. " (5 of 5) [CRLMB-2182/2025] 7. After granting bail to the main accused Ashish Shekhawat, indulgence of bail has been granted to the other co-accused persons namely Jayraj Singh and Pawan Kumar by this Court vide order dated 23.01.2025 and 05.02.2025 respectively, and the case of the petitioner is identical and similar to the case of the above two co-accused persons, hence, under these circumstances, this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view and reject the application filed by the petitioner. 8. Considering the ground of parity and looking to the fact that indulgence of bail has already been granted to the main accused namely Ashish Shekhawat 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 under Section 483 BNSS to the petitioner as well. 9. Accordingly, this instant fourth bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that accused- petitioner Rajendra Yadav @ Tillu S/o Late Shiv Ratan Yadav arrested in connection with aforementioned FIR, may be released on bail; provided that 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 KuD/1