State of Rajasthan, Through PP v. For

: Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP Mr. Sumer Singh Ola for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 04/03/2025 Order

1. This fifth bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused petitioner who is in custody since December,2019 in connection with FIR No.654/2019 Police Station Bansur District Alwar for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 302 IPC read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police has filed charge-sheet in this matter in the court concerned.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the accused petitioner that the accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that noting has come on record which shows involvement of the accused petitioner in the alleged crime. The prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances so as to prove the guilt against the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner is in custody since December, 2019 and as [2025:RJ-JP:10545] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-15253/2024] such, till date, he is behind the bars for last five years and three months. He contends that trial is going at a snail’s pace as till date only 7 witnesses have been examined out of 25 cited witnesses. Conclusion of trial will take considerable time. He also contends that this delay occurring in conclusion of trial is seriously violating the fundamental right of the speedy trial of the petitioner 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 get prolonged, it is not open for the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused on the ground that the charges are very serious.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as complainant opposes the prayer of bail. It is submitted that looking to gravity of offence and evidence so far come on record, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail. It is also contended that two other cases including one case involving offence under Section 302 IPC, have been registered against the petitioner. They thus, crave dismissal of the bail application.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner is in custody since December, 2019 and thus, he has served incarceration of nearly five years and three months. Further, as per the communication dated

14.02.2025 received from the learned trial court, till date only 7 witnesses, out of 25 cited witnesses, have been examined and thus, trial will take long time in its conclusion. The delay occurring in conclusion of trial is seriously violating the fundamental right of [2025:RJ-JP:10545] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-15253/2024] the speedy trial of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. 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 of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society.

7. 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 Vs. Union of India, 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. [2025:RJ-JP:10545] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-15253/2024]

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in catena of the 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 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.

9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that the petitioner is in custody since December,2019; trial will take time in its conclusion as 18 witnesses are yet to be examined during the course of trial but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

10. Consequently, this fifth bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Shishram S/o Shri Kaluuram arrested in connection with FIR No.654/2019 registered at Police Station Bansur, District Bhiwari Rajasthan shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with [2025:RJ-JP:10545] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-15253/2024] the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

11. It is made clear that the accused petitioner shall not involve in any similar offence during currency of bail and he shall mark his presence in the concerned local police station in the first and third week of every month till trial is concluded.

12. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail and would not have any impact on trial of the case in any manner. LALIT MOHAN /752 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J