The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp v. For

Order

1. Instant Second Bail Application is preferred by Petitioner accused Rajesh Sargra @ Babu in Sessions Case No. 209/2023 arising out of FIR No. 208/2023 registered at P.S. Beawar City and pending before Learned Sessions Judge, SC/ST (P.O.A) Act Cases, Ajmer.

2. First bail application of this petitioner accused was dismissed by this court on 16.05.2024. While deciding first bail application no. 3570/2024, this court has considered that on

27.02.2024, this court has allowed bail of accused Dwarkadheesh but dismissed the bail application of Pawan. Now, this application is filed after recording statement of PW1 Vijay, PW2 Rohit and PW3 Naresh. [2025:RJ-JP:25998] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-8625/2025]

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred the statement of PW1 Vijay, PW2 Rohit, and PW3 Naresh and submitted that none of them have deposed against the present petitioner. He submitted that PW3 Naresh has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. He further submitted that PW1 and PW2 have also denied presence and involvement of present petitioner. He further submitted that there are large number of witnesses and trial will take time but all important and material witnesses were examined and there is no likelihood that the petitioner accused may influence the prosecution witness. At last, he submitted that petitioner undertake not to commit any crime after being released on bail.

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for complainant and learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record.

6. The facts of the case indicate that on the basis of written complaint lodged by Vijay, brother of deceased on

07.03.2023, FIR No. 208/2023 was registered at P.S.-Beawar City (Ajmer), wherein Pawan, Veeru, Divyansh, and others were named who had altercation with deceased. The report further stated that Pawan has assaulted deadly below and he was accompanied by other persons and incident was recorded in CCTV footage. After registration of FIR, the police has recovered CCTV footage and analyzed the same and recorded statement of witnesses and filed a charge sheet against several persons including present petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:25998] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-8625/2025]

7. This court has dismissed SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 1103/2023 and 822/2024 filed by D @ D (Juvenile) seeking bail in the matter. This court has also dismissed criminal appeal filed by Pawan, Rajesh and Devasheesh seeking bail but allowed bail of Dwarkadheesh and released him on bail. Another accused Sunil Kumar has also filed bail application and same was dismissed as withdrawn. Second bail filed by Sunil Kumar is pending before another bench.

8. A perusal of statement indicated that the examination in chief of PW1 Vijay was recorded on 20.06.2024 and cross- examination was deferred but cross-examination was later continued and concluded on 16.12.2024. In Examination-in-Chief recorded on 20-06-2024, PW1 Vijay has named present petitioner Veeru, Devashish, Pawan, Dwarkadhish, Devraj, and Kamal. Another witness PW2 Rohit was also examined by prosecution and in Examination-in-Chief he named Sunil, Veeru Gujjar, Rajaram, Pawan, and others. PW1 has further stated that Rajaram, Sunil, Pawan, Devashish, Veeru, and Kamal have assaulted Ganesh which resulted into death of deceased Ganesh. During cross- examination, this witness has admitted that he is not aware about Sunil and Devashish. The witness PW2 has also admitted that Devashish, Dwarkadheesh, Kamal, and Devraj have not assaulted him on head. The statement of PW3, Naresh was recorded on 17- 03-2025 who has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution and in his cross-examination he admitted that Vijay and Rohit were not present on spot rather they have come after the incident. [2025:RJ-JP:25998] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-8625/2025]

9. A perusal of evidence suggests that these three witnesses have twisted their evidence as PW3 has not supported from the beginning but the important aspect is that PW1 in his examination in chief on 20.06.2024 has specifically named present petitioner and later he denied involvement of present petitioner.

10. Considering the material on record, I am of considered view that the system is used for benefit by accused and the individuals who are helping the accused. Thus, this is not a fit case wherein indulgence of bail can be granted on the ground that three material witnesses PW1, PW2, and PW3 have not supported the case of prosecution, and the bail application is liable to be dismissed.

11. Before parting the order, a very important issue which requires consideration is that after recording FIR on 07.03.2023, charge sheet has been filed within 90 days and thereafter charges were settled against accused. The statement of PW1 was partially recorded on 20.06.2024 and concluded on 16.12.2024 whereas statement of PW2 was recorded on 02.09.2024 and PW3 on

17.03.2025. This indicates the state of affairs of criminal justice system in the state particularly where a group of persons facing charge of murder.

12. The Sessions Trial refers to a criminal trial conducted by a court of Sessions for a serious and heinous offence punishable for more than seven years including life imprisonment or death. The Sessions Trial means once the trial has begun then it has to be continued till conclusion of trial. It normally means a session (4-5 days or more) has to be [2025:RJ-JP:25998] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-8625/2025] assigned for recording the material witnesses at the first instance and in case recording of statement of witness is not complete on day fixed then the witness has to be continued on next day but in the instant case learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA Act) Cases after recording examination in chief on 20.06.2024 has permitted the actors of system to play in the matter so that on 16.12.2024 when PW1 Vijay returned to the court for concluding his statement, he turned hostile and betrayed the prosecution.

13. The important aspect is also visible from the fact that examination in chief of PW-1 was recorded on 20.06.2024 whereas statement of PW-2 was recorded on 02.09.2024 and PW-3 on 17.03.2025 meaning thereby three material witnesses were recorded within a period of nine months means two years after the incident. The purpose of creation of courts and appointing and promoting judicial officers in court of additional sessions judge has lost significance in such a situation.

14. We have Rajasthan Judicial Academy at Jodhpur to impart training to judicial officers about Sessions Trial but the manner in which trial is conducted clearly indicate that there is no purpose of judicial academy, if a judicial officer is of the opinion that my way is highway and he is not subject matter of judicial discipline.

15. In Indian criminal justice system trial is based on oral deposition of witnesses and a witness is considered as an eye and ears of justice and recording of their testimony is crucial in determining the outcome of the case, in particular to impart [2025:RJ-JP:25998] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-8625/2025] justice to victim. The state-run prosecution system is duty-bound to act swiftly and promptly, but still a judicial officer is not relieved of his own duties towards the system. A judicial officer is duty- bound to follow law and procedure while imparting justice between parties.

16. In the instant case and like every case, coming up before the court, we are experiencing that almost all judicial officers acting is either additional sessions judge or Special Judge in a Court of Sessions or Sessions Judge, are not handling the sessions case in correct perspective by not following norms prescribed for sessions trial. No one is bothered to record the statement of witness on time whether it is under POCSO Act or SC/ST (POA) Act. Normally, the person belonging to SC/ST community or women and children are very vulnerable sections and they require substantial attention from the courts particularly presiding officer(s).

17. It is duty of the Judicial Academy and also the High Court to sensitize judicial officers about the need of the society and enforce responsibility to act in accordance with law. If they are not performing in accordance with the need of the hour then they are liable for a stern action.

18. With aforesaid we are closing the topic but with request to Hon'ble the Chief Justice and also the Hon'ble Judge in charge of Rajasthan Judicial Academy to take care of alarming situation where the presiding officers are running out of discipline and acting as an autocrat. [2025:RJ-JP:25998] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-8625/2025]

19. In view of discussion made herein above, second bail application preferred by petitioner-accused Rajesh Sargra @ Babu, is hereby dismissed.

20. A copy of this order be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice through Registrar General. A copy be sent to the Rajasthan Judicial Academy, Jodhpur. PREETI VALECHA /03 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J