Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Dharmendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:13502) on 11 March, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:13502]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1342/2024
1. Dharmendra Kumar S/o Kanihram, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Chak No. 27 Bd P.s. Khajuwala, Dist. Bikaner,raj.
2. Roshan Lal S/o Dariya Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Chak No. 27 Bd P.s. Khajuwala, Dist. Bikaner,raj.
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Rajendra S/o Sri Lalchand, R/o Mastiwali Head, Tehsil
Tibbi, P.s. Talwada, Dist. Hanumangarh,raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. H.S.S.S. Kharlia, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Ms. Kinjal Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP
Mr. Kaushal Gautam, for respondent
No.2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
11/03/2025
The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A (2) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants,
who is in custody in connection with FIR No.304/2019, Police
Station Khajuwala, for the offences under Sections 302, 307,
325, 323, 341 & 34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act
and against the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by learned Special
Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, District Bikaner
whereby the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
(483 BNSS) on behalf of the appellants was rejected.
It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that on
previous occasion this Court has ordered the trial Court to
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:46:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13502] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-1342/2024]
expedite the trial and out of total 29 witnesses only 14
prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. It is also
submitted that as per the progress report, in which the trial Court
has also mentioned that the prosecution witnesses deliberately did
not come for their evidence. The accused-appellants are in judicial
custody since 21.12.2019 and 20.11.2019 and they are in custody
from last more than five years and the trial of the case will take
sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore, the benefit of bail
should be granted to the accused-appellants.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance
on the judgment of Honb’le Supreme Court in the case of
Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No.8523/2024) in which while granting bail it has
been observed as under:
” 9. The incident in the present case occurred on
25.06.2020 and the petitioner was arrested
soon thereafter on 26.06.2020. By now, 6 co-
accused have been granted bail. As the
prosecution wishes to examine 17 more
witnesses, the trial is unlikely to conclude on a
near date.
10. Considering the above and to avoid the
situation of the trial process itself being the
punishment particularly when there is
presumption of innocence under the Indian
jurisprudence, we deem it appropriate to grant
bail to the petitioner – Balwinder Singh. It is
ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions
be imposed by the learned trial court.”
A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Vyas
vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application
No.14958/2022), vide order dated 17.03.2023, also observed as
follows:
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abdul
Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:46:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13502] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-1342/2024]Kashmir [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.3961/2022], Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.668/2020),
Tapan Das Vs. Union of India [Special Leave to
Appeal (Criminal) No.5617/2021], Kulwant Singh
Vs. State of Punjab [Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No.5187/2019], Ghanshyam Sharma
Vs. State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No.5397/2019], Nadeem Vs. State of
UP [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.1524/2022] and Mukesh Vs. The State of
Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.4089/2021] has granted bail to the accused
persons, against whom the allegations are of
transporting or possessing narcotic contraband
above commercial quantity, on the ground of
custody period and taking into consideration the
fact that the trial against the said accused persons
will take time in completion. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has ordered for release of the accused
persons who were in custody from two years to
four years. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed
the bail application.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to
allow this fifth bail application solely on the ground
of custody period of the accused petitioner and
keeping in view the fact that the trial against him
has not been completed till date.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, this third bail application
filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
directed that petitioner Umesh Vyas S/o Shri
Ganeshlal Ji shall be released on bail in connection
with FIR No.15/2019 of Police Station Charbhuja,
District Rajsamand provided he executes a
personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two
sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to
the satisfaction of learned trial court for his
appearance before that court on each and every
date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so
till the completion of the trial.”
Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant and perused the
material available on record.
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:46:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13502] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-1342/2024]
Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as
available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments
advanced at the bar, since the appellants are behind the bars from
last more than five years and the trial is yet pending, this Court is
of the opinion that the order rejecting the application for bail filed
on behalf of the appellants, cannot be sustained and deserves to
be set aside.
Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 30.07.2024 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, District Bikaner is set aside. It is
ordered that the accused-appellants (1) Dharmendra Kumar S/o
Kanihram & (2) Roshan Lal S/o Dariya Singh arrested in
connection with FIR No.304/2019, Police Station Khajuwala, shall
be released on bail; provided they furnish a personal bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- each and two sureties bond of Rs.50,000/- to the
satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear
before that court on all dates of hearing and as and when called
upon to do so.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
60-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 11/03/2025 at 09:46:31 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)