State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp v. For

Judgment

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case

FIR Number Concerned Police Station District Offences alleged in the FIR Ataru Baran Sections 341, 323, 302, 504 & 34 of the IPC Offences added, if any - Date of passing of impugned

15.06.2022 [2025:RJ-JP:28203] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-1034/2025]

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.03.2022, a written report submitted by complainant Puranmal, son of Rameshchandra, was brought to Police Station Atru by Head Constable Narpat Singh (No. 381), wherein it was alleged that on

13.03.2022 at around 11:00 AM, near the fence adjoining their residence in village Sahrod, the complainant’s elder cousin Mukesh (son of Nandkishore) and Nandkishore (son of Ramnarayan) were verbally abusing the complainant’s father. When the complainant intervened, Mukesh struck him on the back with an iron rod. As he moved away, Mukesh and Nandkishore assaulted his father Ramesh—Mukesh delivering a blow to the head with an iron rod, resulting in profuse bleeding and unconsciousness. The complainant alleged that he was obstructed when he attempted to assist his injured father. Upon hearing his cries, witnesses Daulatram, Lalchand, Devkaran, Naresh, and Muralidhar arrived and intervened. Thereafter, the complainant, along with Dinesh, Harishankar, and Lalchand, transported the injured to Priya Hospital, Baran, from where he was referred to Kota and admitted to Jaiswal Hospital. However, during treatment, the complainant’s father succumbed to his injuries on 14.03.2022. His body was placed in the mortuary at MBS Hospital, Kota. The report attributes the fatal injuries to Mukesh and Nandkishore and seeks legal action.

2.1. On the basis of the said report, FIR No. 86/2022 was registered at Police Station Atru under Sections 341, 323, 504, 302, and 34 IPC. Subsequent investigation culminated in the filing of a charge sheet before the competent Court. His first, second [2025:RJ-JP:28203] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-1034/2025] and third bail application being SBCRLMB Nos.16612/2022, 13107/2023 & 5562/2024 were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 04.10.2023, 19.01.2024 & 05.07.2024. At the time of dismissing the earlier bail application, liberty was given to approach this Court again if the trial is not concluded within a reasonable period. Hence, the instant bail application.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

5. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. This Court is of the considered opinion that an undertrial prisoner ought not to remain incarcerated for an indefinite period, especially when the delay in trial is not attributable to the accused. A perusal of the record reveals that although the trial commenced in the year 2022, the examination of prosecution witnesses has not been completed due to various reasons. Out of the total 26 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 22 could have been examined so far. [2025:RJ-JP:28203] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-1034/2025]

7. As per the law, while keeping an accused detained, the opportunity to the prosecutor to lead evidence can only be given for a reasonable period. The wider connotation of the phrase ‘reasonable period’ be understood to be one year because the case is classified as a sessions case which would mean that the like cases should commence and conclude within a session, that is, one year. Even if an elastic interpretation of the expression ‘reasonable period’ is taken on the pretext of certain unavoidable circumstances, then it can only be doubled and even in that situation, trial has to be completed within two years while keeping an accused in custody. Suffice it would to say that for the purpose of determination as to whether the accused is guilty or not, only a reasonable period can be awarded to the prosecutor if the accused is behind the bars. The cases which are classified as session case are purposefully directed to be heard by senior officer of District Judge Cadre looking to his experience and rank/grade/post. In criminal jurisprudence prevalent in India, there is a presumption of innocence working in favour of the accused until he is proven guilty in the trial. The trial is conducted for the purpose of affording an opportunity to the prosecutor to prove the charges and only for the purpose of proving guilt or adducing evidence on record, an unreasonable period of time cannot be granted as the same infringes the fundamental rights of an accused which are otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution of India. While entertaining a bail plea the Court of law is required to take into account the above-mentioned aspect of the matter as well beside the gravity of offence and quantum of sentence. [2025:RJ-JP:28203] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-1034/2025]

8. This Court has made an elaborate discussion with regard to bail of an under trial accused on the ground of delay in culmination of the trial. This Court feels that if the accused is under detention, it is obligatory for the prosecution to complete the trial within a reasonable period. Dealing with the identical issue where the trial had been protracted for unreasonable period, an elaborate discussion has been made by this Court while deciding the S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5916/2023 in the matter of Lichhman Ram @ Laxman Ram Vs. State decided on 08.02.2024. The relevant part of which would be apt to reproduce here which reads as under:-

7. This Court feels that the nature and gravity of offence and availability of material in support thereof are not the only factors to be taken into account while considering a bail application. The fact that trial is to be concluded within a reasonable period of time is imperative while considering grant of bail to an accused. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage and the objective for keeping a person in jail is to ensure his presence to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. This detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive in nature. An accused is considered to be innocent until he or she or they are proven guilty in the court of law.

8. As per the fundamental rights granted to every citizen/person by the Constitution of India, the accused cannot be expected to languish in custody for an indefinite period if the trial is taking unreasonably long time to reach the stage of conclusion. An under trial prisoner, who is waiting for the trial to complete [2025:RJ-JP:28203] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-1034/2025] and reach a conclusion about his guilt for the alleged crime, is not only deprived of his right to a speedy trial but his other fundamental rights like right to liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of practising a profession or carrying on any occupation, business or trade and freedom to dignity are also hampered. In view of the enunciation made regarding provisions for consideration of bail and looking to the fact that the petitioner is behind the bar since last more than three years and noticing that culmination of trial in a near future is not a seeming fate and considering the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that nature and gravity of offence alone are not required to be considered at the time of granting bail but at the same time, it has to be ensured that the trial has to be concluded within a reasonable period if the accused in languishing in jail therefore, without going into the niceties of the matter it is felt that the right of the accused to have a speedy trial should be protected. Looking to the high probability that the trial may still take a long time to conclude this Court deems it fit to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner.

9. It is well-nigh settled law that at pre-conviction stage, bail is a rule and denial of the same should be an exception. The purpose for keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction and to ensure that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him otherwise, as stated above, it is the rule of crimnal jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is proved. In the instant case, it has been more than three years have elapsed [2025:RJ-JP:28203] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-1034/2025] since the accused was sent to jail and his rights and liberties are getting stifled as he is being kept incarcerated without any progress in the trial. An accused cannot be kept behind bars as an undertrial for an indefinite period.

10. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 CrPC is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. (FARJAND ALI),J