State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp v. For

: Mr. Viveek Sharma, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI (Through Video Conferencing) Order 25/07/2025

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

6. FIR Number Concerned Police Station Hindon City District Karoli Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 143, 341 & 302 of the IPC Offences added, if any - Date of passing of impugned

30.04.2025 [2025:RJ-JP:28204] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-9258/2025]

2. The brief factual premise, as delineated in FIR No. 521/2020 registered at Police Station Hindaun City, reveals that on

26.12.2020 at approximately 5:00 PM, the complainant, Anoop Singh Saad, lodged a written report alleging the targeted and fatal assault on his father, Richpal. It was alleged that while Richpal was returning home to Richpal’s Pura from Hindaun Hospital— following a dressing procedure on his leg and riding his M80 (bearing registration no. RJ-34-M-3984)—he was waylaid near the Anicut by a group of individuals with whom the family had longstanding enmity. These persons, armed with dangerous weapons including knives, firearms, swords, and lathis, allegedly launched a coordinated and premeditated attack.

2.1. Specific allegations were made against accused Jaleem Singh, who is said to have inflicted a fatal knife wound to the deceased’s neck. Prithvi is alleged to have stabbed the victim in the facial region near his nose, while the remaining assailants collectively perpetrated a violent assault. When the complainant and his brother Omprakash attempted to intervene, they were allegedly threatened at gunpoint by Siyaram and Hetram. The deceased, Richpal—who had previously received death threats— succumbed to his injuries at the scene. Upon registration of the FIR under Sections 143, 341, and 302 IPC, the present petitioner was arrested on 30.12.2020. Subsequent investigation yielded prima facie material, leading to the filing of a charge sheet under Sections 341 and 302 IPC, and the case is currently pending trial before the Sessions Court. [2025:RJ-JP:28204] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-9258/2025]

2.2. In the course of proceedings, the complainant moved an application under Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, asserting that accused Jaleem Singh was explicitly named in the FIR and that the prosecution witnesses examined thus far had categorically attributed a fatal neck blow to him. It was further contended that his presence at the crime scene stood corroborated and that his utterances during the incident— recorded in the charge sheet—evinced a clear intent to kill and active participation in furtherance of common intention. The learned trial court, upon due consideration, allowed the said application and ordered his summoning, thereby giving rise to the present application seeking bail.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously urged that the prosecution has failed to establish any conclusive nexus between the petitioner and the commission of the offence. It is submitted that the allegations are speculative and the petitioner’s continued incarceration is unwarranted in the absence of substantive incriminating evidence. It is further argued that the petitioner’s implication appears to be an afterthought, lacking independent corroboration.

4. Conversely, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail, contending that the nature and gravity of the allegations, coupled with the specific role attributed to the petitioner, render the case unsuitable for grant of bail at this stage. [2025:RJ-JP:28204] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-9258/2025]

5. Upon thoughtful consideration of the rival submissions and careful examination of the record, this Court deems it appropriate to address the issue in light of procedural developments and constitutional safeguards.

6. It emerges from the record that following the complainant’s application, the trial court invoked Section 326(3) CrPC and, in adherence to principles of natural justice, directed the trial to recommence de novo. The proceedings were thus revived from inception, affording both the prosecution and defense a full and fair opportunity to present their case afresh, including re- examination and cross-examination of witnesses in their entirety. Procedural integrity was duly maintained.

7. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody since

30.12.2020—an uninterrupted detention spanning over four and a half years. Despite this considerable lapse of time, the progress in trial has been virtually negligible. Of the 42 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only three have been examined to date. The proceedings have been further delayed due to the supplementary charge sheet filed implicating one Jalam Singh, which necessitated recommencement of the trial, thereby compounding the existing delay.

8. The enduring stagnation of the trial process, both before and after the order of de novo trial, raises serious concerns under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right to a speedy trial, though procedural in form, is substantive in nature and is a core component of the right to life and personal liberty. The prolonged [2025:RJ-JP:28204] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-9258/2025] pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner, without meaningful progress in trial, infringes upon his fundamental rights.

9. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that every accused stands cloaked with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The object of pre-conviction custody is limited to securing the accused’s presence during trial and to prevent obstruction of justice—not to impose punitive confinement.

10. Although the seriousness of the offence and the corresponding penal consequences are important factors to be weighed during bail consideration, they cannot be determinative in isolation. The demonstrable delay in prosecutorial progress and the indefinite timeline for completion of trial materially tilt the balance in favour of the petitioner.

11. The phrase “reasonable time” for conclusion of trial must be construed contextually. While Sessions trials are ideally expected to be concluded within one year, a degree of elasticity is permissible. Nevertheless, an undertrial languishing in custody for over four years, without substantial progress in trial, is an aberration that cannot be overlooked. Such a scenario militates against the very notion of substantive due process.

12. In balancing the competing considerations of the gravity of offence and constitutional imperatives, courts must ensure that the foundational principles of justice are not sacrificed. Continued incarceration of an undertrial, in the face of systemic delay and procedural stasis, cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the seriousness of the allegations. [2025:RJ-JP:28204] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-9258/2025]

13. It is trite law that bail, at the pre-conviction stage, is the rule and its denial an exception. The doctrine that an accused should not undergo the rigours of punishment without a fair and conclusive trial remains inviolable. Where the trial is inexcusably delayed and the prosecution fails to discharge its burden in a timely fashion, the denial of bail amounts to a miscarriage of justice and undermines the legitimacy of the criminal justice process.

14. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 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