[2026:RJ-JP:12461] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 16667/2025 Lalpati @ Naine S/o Shri Sugan Lal, R/o Bhoore Ka Pura Tan Gurdah, Police Station Langra, District Karauli (Raj.). (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In District Jail Karauli). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 17017/2025 Pushpendra S/o Bidharam, R/o Bhurekapura, Tan Gurdah, Police Station Langra, District Karauli (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail Karauli, District Karauli). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Tapeshwar Pal Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP with Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, AAAG Ms. Pankaj Solanki, Adv. for Mr. Arvind Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/03/2026 1. These second bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.73/2023 registered at Police Station Langra, District Karauli for offences punishable under Sections 143 & 302 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed [2026:RJ-JP:12461] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-16667/2025] charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 147, 302, 364 & 120B of the IPC. 2. The first bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners Lalpati @ Naine and Pushpendra were dismissed on merits vide orders dated 06.03.2025 & 10.09.2025, respectively. Now, these second bail applications have been filed on behalf of the petitioners. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that charge-sheet has already been filed and nothing has come on record which shows involvement of the accused petitioners in the alleged crime. It is also contended that co-accused Sonu has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2025. 4. Arguing the case of the petitioner Lalpati @ Naine, counsel submits that no evidence is available on record to show that the petitioner caused injury to the deceased and he has been roped in this case with the aid of Section 120B of IPC. Counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with one Badam dumped the dead body of deceased Asharam in front of the house of the complainant. Counsel submits that the Police did not charge-sheet the said Badam. He further submits that the main allegation of assault is against co-accused Rinku, who is son of petitioner Lalpati @ Naine. 5. It is submitted that petitioner Lalpati @ Naine is in custody since 22.06.2023 and as such, he has already suffered incarceration of more than two years and eight months whereas [2026:RJ-JP:12461] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-16667/2025] petitioner Pushpendra is in custody since 06.03.2024 and as such, he has already suffered incarceration of about two years. It is contended that the trial is going at a snail’s pace as till October 2025, only 27 prosecution witnesses have been examined, out of 35 cited prosecution witnesses. It is also contended that the delay occurring in conclusion of trial is seriously violating the fundamental right of the speedy trial of the petitioners 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 gets prolonged, it is not open for the prosecution to oppose the bail of the accused on the ground that the charges are very serious. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted that looking to the gravity of offence and evidence which has come on record so far, the petitioners do not deserve indulgence of bail. They, thus, crave dismissal of these bail applications. 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. Admittedly, the petitioners are in custody since 22.06.2023 & 06.03.2024, respectively. The delay occurring in conclusion of trial is seriously violating the fundamental right of the speedy trial of the petitioners as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 9. 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 [2026:RJ-JP:12461] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-16667/2025] of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society. 10. 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 versus 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 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. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in catena of 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 [2026:RJ-JP:12461] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-16667/2025] 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. 12. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that the petitioners are in custody since 22.06.2023 & 06.03.2024, respectively, as also the fact that co- accused Sonu has already been enlarged on bail and there is bleak chances of culmination of trial in near future as some more 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 petitioners on bail. 13. Consequently, these second bail applications are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners (1) Lalpati @ Naine S/o Shri Sugan Lal and (2) Pushpendra S/o Bidharam arrested in connection with FIR No.73/2023 registered at Police Station Langra, District Karauli shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond 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. [2026:RJ-JP:12461] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-16667/2025] 14. It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in the first week of every month in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial. 15. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioners in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 16. If any breach of these conditions is reported or comes to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioners by this Court. 17. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 18. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki /29 & 30