The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its PP vs Mr. Gaurav Meena,

: Mr. Anshuman Saxena Mr. Gaurav Meena, Mr. Amit Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP Mr. Ankit Khandelwal for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 08/05/2025

1. This second bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.234/2023 registered at Police Station Khoh, District Deeg for offence(s) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 302 of IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act.

2. It has been stated that the present case is a case of over implication of accused as entire family of the petitioner has been named in the FIR. As far as petitioner is concerned, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner for inflicting injury either to the deceased-Suwan Khan or injured persons namely Ayub, Taib and Taslim. During investigation, a lathi has been allegedly recovered from the petitioner, but the death of deceased has been caused due to firearm injury. Petitioner is in custody since [2025:RJ-JP:19399] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5420/2025]

03.11.2023 and despite filing of charge-sheet and framing of charges, after rejection of first bail application on 18.03.2024, no prosecution witness has been examined for the reason that the complainant Ayub himself has obtained stay on the further proceedings of trial of Sessions Case No. 9/2024 vide order dated

10.12.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2082/2024 titled as Ayub Vs. State of Rajasthan. In addition, it has been submitted that in previous three criminal cases, against the petitioner, belong to year 2018 and therein petitioner has already been released bail. It has been argued that petitioner is languishing in jail without trial since long and his fundamental right of life and liberty and right to have a speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are being frustrated, that too for no fault on the part of petitioner, hence, in such circumstances, petitioner be released on bail. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another [(2024) 9 SCC 813] has succinctly laid down the principle for granting bail to the accused in absence of speedy trial, which has also been followed in case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [(2024) AIR SC 4053] on which learned counsel has relied upon. It would be apropos to reproduce para no. 17 of Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh (Supra) hereunder: “17. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined Under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.” [2025:RJ-JP:19399] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5420/2025]

3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for complainant have opposed the bail application, pointing out the criminal antecedents of petitioner. Counsel for complainant drew attention of this Court to the statements of injured Taib and Jeetu, who are brother of deceased recorded under Section 161 CrPC. In the statement of Taib, no specific allegation has been made against the petitioner and in statements of Jeetu, only an injury by wooden lathi has been stated to be inflicted upon him. Counsel for complainant could not point out any other evidence against petitioner in the charge-sheet, except being member of unlawful assembly. However, counsel for complainant and learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute that the criminal trial in the present case has not progressed after filing of charge-sheet, since further proceedings are stayed in the criminal revision filed by the complainant, details of which have been referred hereinabove.

4. Having pondered over the rival submission of both parties and in view of the fact that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner to cause any injury to the deceased-Suwan Khan; petitioner is languishing in jail since 03.11.2023; charge-sheet has been filed but there is no progress in criminal trial and further trial of criminal session case No. 9/2024 has been stayed by the Court vide order dated 10.12.2024 in criminal revision filed by the complainant himself, thus, there is a breach of fundamental right of petitioner, to have a speedy trial and facing incarceration without trial. Further, in the previous three cases, petitioner has already been granted bail, thus, in such changed circumstances [2025:RJ-JP:19399] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5420/2025] and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, but without commenting on merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release petitioner on bail.

5. Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Mijaj S/o Illa @ Iliyas shall be released 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.

6. However, in addition to the usual terms and conditions, it is hereby directed that: (i) Accused-petitioner shall not induce or influence or temper with any prosecution evidence/witness. (ii) Accused-petitioner shall not repeat the similar nature of offence. (iii) Accused-petitioner shall not leave District Deeg & Bharatpur without leave of the trial Court. (iv) In case, accused-petitioner is found involved in similar offences, during bail granted by this Court or breach of conditions is reported or comes to the notice of the Court, the same shall be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail, granted by this Court. NITIN /1 (SUDESH BANSAL),J