HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail v. State of Rajasthan, through PP

: Mr. O.P. Solanki, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Girish Khandelwal, Adv. (for the complainant) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 13/01/2025

1. The present second bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated

24.07.2024.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and the general allegations for causing injuries to the deceased have been levelled against the accused-petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that only one 'lathi' with no blood stains has been recovered from the accused-petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:1841] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-15269/2024]

3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner contended that the allegation of causing fatal injuries to the deceased has been made against the other co-accused person-Ishe Khan. Learned counsel also submitted that out of 23 witnesses, who have been named in the charge-sheet, as many as 8 witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. Learned counsel further contended that the statements of the injured witnesses i.e. PW-6, 7 and 8 recorded before the trial Court are self-contradictory and there are some discrepancies in their statements.

4. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner argued that the accused-petitioner was arrested on 10.08.2023 and since then, he is behind the bars. Learned counsel further argued that trial against the accused-petitioner is pending before the trial Court in Sessions Case No.41/2023, which will take time to conclude.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that the prosecution has filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court but the same is pending and therefore, the accused-petitioner be granted benefit of bail.

6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has placed reliance on various judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench respectively in the cases of:- • Ajeet Kumar Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi [SLP (Crl.) No.14635/2024] decided on 04.12.2024; • Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation [SLP (Crl.) No.3610/2020] decided on

27.07.2021; [2025:RJ-JP:1841] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-15269/2024] • Rajib Dey Vs. The State of West Bengal [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).8895/2022] decided on 20.01.2023; • Shariful Islam Vs. The State of West Bengal [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4173/2022] decided on 04.08.2022; • Mohd. Ibrabhim Second Bail Application Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.22/2020) decided on 29.07.2022.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor along with learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant while vehemently opposing this bail application, submitted that the first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.07.2024 on merits and since then, no change in the facts and circumstances of the case has been made.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'X' Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.13378/2024] reported in 2024 INSC 909 decided on

27.11.2024, has held that:- "14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. [2025:RJ-JP:1841] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-15269/2024]

15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed."

10. It is evident from perusal of the record that the statements of the witnesses PW-6, 7 and 8 to which the attention of this Court has been drawn, were already recorded when the first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was decided by this Court i.e. on 24.07.2024, thus there is no change of circumstances except the fact that the application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the prosecution after dismissal of the first bail application. [2025:RJ-JP:1841] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-15269/2024]

11. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'X' Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), this Court is not inclined to allow the second bail application filed by the accused-petitioner, however, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, District Alwar is directed to dispose of the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. at the earliest and proceed further with the trial and it is further directed that learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, District Alwar shall examine the medical witnesses of this case on priority basis.

12. Consequently, this second bail application filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is dismissed with the aforesaid directions. AARZOO ARORA /01 (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J