Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Madan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:34617) on 5 August, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:34617]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 1903/2025
Madan S/o Reskharam, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Chir Dhani P.s.
Peepar City, Dist Jodhpur (Presently Incarcerated At Central Jail
Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kr. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
05/08/2025
1. This is the third bail application under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed on behalf of the
petitioner-accused Madan Bishnoi, who is facing trial in connection
with FIR No. 131/2023 registered at Police Station Osian, District
Jodhpur Gramin for offences under Sections 302, 120-B, 147, 148,
and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as
not pressed vide order dated 24.11.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 13604/2023, with liberty granted to
renew the prayer after recording the statements of key
prosecution witnesses, namely, Pukhraj, Prem Singh, and Prema
Ram. Subsequently, the second bail application was rejected on
merits after consideration of the said statements, vide order dated
(Downloaded on 11/08/2025 at 09:31:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34617] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-1903/2025]
15.03.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2 nd Bail Application No.
2553/2024.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Public Prosecutor, and have also perused the material available on
record including the challan papers, statements of material
witnesses recorded during trial, and the earlier orders of this
Court.
3.1. The prosecution case pertains to the brutal murder of one
Shyam Lal Paliwal, a 22-year-old youth, who was fatally assaulted
with multiple stab wounds on vital parts of his body. The cause of
death, as per the postmortem report, was hemorrhagic shock
resulting from avulsion of major blood vessels.
3.2. The FIR was lodged by the complainant Gopikishan, who
specifically named the present petitioner along with co-accused
Suresh, Shahid Khan, Mohit Khatik, Anil Jaat, and Vishnu @
Thekedar. The incident is corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses
whose testimonies remain consistent and are recorded on oath.
3.3. While it is true that the petitioner has not been alleged to be
a direct assailant, the material on record indicates his involvement
in the capacity of a co-conspirator. It is alleged that the petitioner
played an active role in the planning and facilitation of the offence.
The prosecution seeks to establish his complicity by placing
reliance on both direct and circumstantial evidence.
(Downloaded on 11/08/2025 at 09:31:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34617] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-1903/2025]
3.4. Notably, in the order passed on the second bail application,
this Court had elaborately considered the statements of key
prosecution witnesses. PW-2 Prema Ram, who claims to have been
present in the immediate vicinity of the crime scene, has
unequivocally identified the petitioner near Camera No. 3.
Importantly, even in the course of cross-examination (see page
8), the said witness reaffirmed the petitioner’s presence at the
relevant time, along with co-accused Vishnu @ Thekedar.
3.5. Furthermore, the prosecution relies on electronic evidence in
the form of CCTV footage from the crime scene and adjoining
areas, which has been duly certified as per Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act. One such footage dated 31.05.2023 shows
the petitioner riding a motorcycle with co-accused Vishnu near
Cherai Village, which is approximately 140 kilometers from the
petitioner’s residence in the opposite direction. This fact,
combined with his presence near the crime location at the relevant
time, lends strong corroboration to the prosecution’s claim
regarding his active involvement and proximity to the commission
of the offence.
4. At this juncture, it would be germane to refer to the
authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of X vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. in Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024 (decided on
27.11.2024), has observed that in cases involving serious
offences such as rape, murder, and dacoity, once the trial has
(Downloaded on 11/08/2025 at 09:31:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34617] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-1903/2025]
commenced, it should be permitted to run its full course without
judicial interference in the form of bail orders, unless there is
undue and unjustified delay in the proceedings, not attributable to
the accused, thereby infringing upon their right to a speedy trial.
5. In light of the binding ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and upon a holistic consideration of the cumulative
evidentiary matrix available at this stage including consistent
eyewitness accounts, CCTV footage, and statements recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., this Court is not inclined to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.
6. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that
while considering bail in matters involving heinous offences such
as murder, the Court must carefully balance several considerations
including, but not limited to, the gravity of the offence, the nature
and quality of evidence on record, the likelihood of tampering with
witnesses or influencing the course of trial, the possibility of
abscondence, and the overarching interest of justice. While
examining a co-accused’s claim for bail arising from the same
incident, categorically held that the offence was committed in a
brutal and premeditated manner, and that the presence of the
accused near the crime scene at a considerable distance from their
place of residence was a significant incriminating circumstance. It
is further observed that conspiracy, being inherently secretive,
shall be inferred from circumstantial evidence, which in the
present case appeared cogent and credible.
(Downloaded on 11/08/2025 at 09:31:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34617] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-1903/2025]
7. The petitioner’s unexplained presence at a location 140
kilometers away from his residence, near the crime scene, at the
relevant time; his identification by an independent witness; and
the corroboration by CCTV footage form a chain of circumstances
that strongly militates against the grant of bail. At this stage,
while refraining from recording any conclusive finding on the
merits of the evidence, which shall be tested during the course of
trial, this Court is of the view that taking into account the gravity
of the offence, the role ascribed to the petitioner, the
corroborative ocular and digital evidence, and the binding
precedent laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.
13378 of 2024, no case for enlargement on bail is made out.
8. Accordingly, the present third bail application filed on behalf
of the petitioner-Madan Bishnoi under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is found
to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
(FARJAND ALI),J
28-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 11/08/2025 at 09:31:30 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)