[2026:RJ-JP:4022] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 7260/2025 Dinesh Gurjar S/o Shri Madan Lal Gurjar, R/o Plot No. 151-C, Kamla Nehru Nagar Hasanpura-C, Police Station Sadar West, Jaipur (Accused Petitioner Is In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitabh Vijayvargiya, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Ashvin Garg, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/01/2026 1. This third bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.291/2020 registered at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur City (South) for offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324, 147, 148, 149, 336, 427 of IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324, 147, 148, 149, 336, 427 & 120B of IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.02.2023 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the statements of material witnesses. Thereafter, second bail application was filed [2026:RJ-JP:4022] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-7260/2025] on behalf of the petitioner however, same was also dismissed on merit vide order dated 20.07.2023. Now, this third bail application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that nothing has come on record which shows involvement of the accused petitioner in the alleged crime. It is also contended that petitioner is in custody since 20.09.2020 and as such, till date, he has suffered incarceration of more than five years. Counsel submits that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date, only 29 witnesses have been examined out of 54 cited prosecution witnesses. He argues that co-accused, who were assigned the role of stabbing the victim with a knife, have already been enlarged on bail. He further argues further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Counsel relies upon the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8523/2024, which reads as under: 6. “The High Court while rejecting bail had asked for conclusion of trial within 5 months. The 5 months period stipulated by the 2 High Court will expire at the end of this month but as noticed earlier, the prosecution proposes to examine 17 more witnesses. 7. An accused has a right to a fair trial and while a hurried trial is frowned upon as it may not give sufficient time to prepare for the defence, an inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial would [2026:RJ-JP:4022] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-7260/2025] infringe the right of an accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 8. It is not for nothing the Author Oscar Wilde in “The Ballad of Reading Gaol”, wrote the following poignant lines while being incarcerated: “I know not whether Laws be right, Or whether Laws be wrong; All that we know who be in jail Is that the wall is strong; And that each day is like a year, A year whose days are long.” 9. The incident in the present case occurred on 25.06.2020 and the petitioner was arrested soon thereafter on 26.06.2020. By now, 6 co-accused have been granted bail. As the prosecution wishes to examine 17 more witnesses, the trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date. 10. Considering the above and to avoid the situation of the trial process itself being the punishment particularly when there is presumption of innocence under the Indian jurisprudence, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner – Balwinder Singh. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the learned trial court.” 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposes the bail application. They submits that looking to the nature and gravity of the allegations, coupled with the specific role attributed to the petitioner, rather the case unsuitable for grant of bail at this stage. 5. I have considered the contentions. [2026:RJ-JP:4022] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-7260/2025] 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the fact that petitioner is in custody since 20.09.2020 i.e. more than five years and till date, only 29 witnesses have been examined out of 54 cited prosecution witnesses, as also considering the fact that co- accused persons have been enlarged on bail, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 7. This third bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Dinesh Gurjar S/o Shri Madan Lal Gurjar shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees 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. 8. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. It is further directed that petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the trial Court and Investigating Agency and he shall not switch off his phone for longer period. [2026:RJ-JP:4022] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-7260/2025] 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. 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. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. 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 Manoj Solanki /16