Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mangna Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27556) on 19 June, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:27556]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7258/2025
Mangna Ram S/o Pokar Ram, Aged About 66 Years, R/o
Ramnagar Radkabera Police Station Bhojasar, District Jodhpur
(At Present Lodged In District Jail Phalodi)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Khilery
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, Public
Prosecutor
Mr. B.L. Bishnoi for the complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
(VACATION JUDGE)
Order
19/06/2025
This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439
Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.60/2020, registered at Police Station
Bhojasar, District – Jodhpur (Rural) (now District – Phalodi) for
offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 354, 440, 447,
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public
Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused
the material available on record.
As per the case of the prosecution, on 04.05.2020 at around
10:00 pm, several persons including Rajesh, Hari Prakash @
Guddu, Rakesh, Puna Ram, Magna Ram (present petitioner), Pokar
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:32:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27556] (2 of 11) [CRLMB-7258/2025]
Ram, Jugtaram, Krishna Ram, Sukhram, Shyamlal along with 10-
12 other persons barged into the property of the son of the
complainant while carrying lethal weapons and took out the same
from tractor and started beating Harish, witnessing the same
Ganpat Lal and Shiv Lal tried to rescue him but they were also
beaten as well. In furtherance, the clothes of Urmila, (daughter-
in-law of the complainant) were torn by the accused persons. In
connection with the said incident, the aforementioned FIR was
lodged, while the complainant’s son was in coma; however, later
on during investigation as Harish died, thus offence under Section
302 was also added. Thereafter on 29.07.2020, a charge-sheet
was filed against the accused persons for the offences under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 354, 440, 447, 307 & 302 IPC
and subsequently another charge-sheet was filed on 09.11.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that accused-
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Accused has not caused any injuries to the deceased Harish or any
other injured persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that there is no substantial piece of evidence available
on record as regard to any participation of the petitioner in the
alleged incident. The petitioner is old aged and suffering from
ailments.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
accused-petitioner is in Judicial custody since since 07.05.2020.
Considering the long period of custody, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.12113/2024 : Hari Prakash @ Guddu Vs. The State of
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:32:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27556] (3 of 11) [CRLMB-7258/2025]
Rajasthan & Anr. vide order dated 15.10.2024, has directed the
trial Court to conclude the trail within a period of six months,
despite that only the statements of 12 witnesses have been
recorded out of the total 28 witnesses cited by the prosecution.
The complainant party and the prosecution with an intention to
delay the trial, are not producing the witnesses in the Court for
recording their statements so that accused be kept in
incarceration for a long period. This fact is clear from the order-
sheets of the learned Trial Court. The complainant party has
made a complaint that the accused persons are threatening them.
In this regard, police has made interrogation and recorded the
statement of victim Urmila who stated that no one has stopped
her from giving statement before the Court and nor she has been
threatened. Thus, it is clear that in case petitioner is enlarged on
bail, there is no apprehension of witnesses to be threatened. He,
therefore, submitted that the accused-petitioner cannot be kept in
the jail for an indefinite period.
In support of the contention aforesaid, learned counsel for
the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb
reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, in which, while dealing with the
cases where fetters are placed on Court’s power to grant bail and
the trial has not been completed within a reasonable time, it has
been observed as under:-
“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory
restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does
not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant
bail on grounds of violation of Part – III of the(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:32:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27556] (4 of 11) [CRLMB-7258/2025]Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a
statute as well as the powers exercisable under
constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised.
Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts
are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against
grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt
down where there is no likelihood of trial being
completed within a reasonable time and the period of
incarceration already undergone has exceeded a
substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an
approach would safeguard against the possibility of
provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used
as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale
breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the case
of Umesh Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. II
Bail Application No.14958/2022), in which vide order dated
17.03.2023, the Court has observed as follows:
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abdul
Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and
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(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:32:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27556] (5 of 11) [CRLMB-7258/2025]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 counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the
order dated 06.06.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Vijayraj Vs. State of Rajasthan : Petition for
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8255/2025 and in the case
of Suresh Sahu Vs. The State of Rajasthan : Petition for
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3413/2025 decided on
23.05.2025, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail
to the accused-appellants.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
lathi which was recovered in this case does not have blood stained
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:32:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27556] (6 of 11) [CRLMB-7258/2025]
on it and the FSL report is clear in this regard. No witness has
stated that the accused died due to head injury inflicted by the
petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
eye-witnesses whose statements have been recorded, have not
attributed any specific role to the accused petitioner. The deceased
sustained head injury and due to which he died. No witness in his
statement has stated that the head injury has been caused to the
deceased by the present petitioner and this fact has also not come
during the course of investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
accused is in judicial custody for more than five years and the trial
of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, he prayed
that the accused-petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and
submitted that accused along with other accused persons armed
with weapons, entered into the house of the complainant and
assaulted on the son of the complainant and his wife. They torn
the clothes of Urmila, the wife of Harish and the daughter-in-law
of the complainant. The accused persons have committed a
heinous crime of murder of Harish, the son of the complainant.
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the
accused has an active role in commission of murder of Harish.
Accused petitioner is a companion of the hardcore criminal Rajesh
and Puna Ram @ Poonam Chand. Police has also declared a
reward of Rs.25,000/- on apprehension of the accused Rajesh.
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:32:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27556] (7 of 11) [CRLMB-7258/2025]
Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the
complainant submitted that the co-accused Rakesh, Sukhram and
Hariprakash @ Guddu have been rejected by the Coordinate
Benches of this Court vide orders dated 14.03.2022, 05.12.2023
and 29.05.2024, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.1105/2022, 8997/2023 and 4813/2024. The accused persons
are threatening the witnesses not to appear in the Court and
trying to delay the trial.
Therefore, they prayed that looking to the gravity of the
offence, benefit of bail may not be extended to the petitioner.
The deceased sustained head injury and due to which he
died. It is not clear from the statements of the witnesses that the
head injury has been caused to the deceased by the present
petitioner and this fact has also not come during the course of
investigation. The accused has caused any injury on the body of
the deceased, the same has not come on record. The accused is
aged about 66 years.
Despite the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to the
trial Court to conclude the trail within a period of six months, only
the statements of 12 witnesses have been recorded out of the
total 28 witnesses cited by the prosecution. 16 witnesses
remained to be examined.
From perusal of the order-sheets of the learned trial Court, it
reveals that no sincere efforts are being made by the learned trial
Court to examined the remaining witnesses and no effective
orders have been passed by the learned trial Court in this regard.
Long dates have been granted by the Presiding Officer and the
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:32:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27556] (8 of 11) [CRLMB-7258/2025]
trail of the case has not been concluded within a period of six
months despite the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
As per the law, while keeping an accused detained, the
opportunity to the prosecutor to lead evidence can only be given
for a reasonable period. The accused-petitioner cannot be kept in
the jail for an indefinite period. The trial is conducted for the
purpose of affording an opportunity to the prosecution to prove
the charges and only for the purpose of providing guilt or
adducing evidence on record, an unreasonable period of time
cannot be granted as the same infringes the fundamental rights of
an accused which are otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution of
India. While entertaining a bail plea, the Court of law is required
to take into account the above mentioned aspect of the matter as
well beside the gravity of the offence and quantum of sentence.
It is well-nigh settled law that at pre-conviction stage, bail is
a rule and denial of the same should be an exception. The purpose
for keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to
secure his presence on the day of conviction and to ensure that he
may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him otherwise,
as stated above, it is the rule of criminal jurisprudence that he
shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is proved. In the instant
case, it has been around five years have elapsed since the
accused was sent to jail and his rights and liberties are getting
stifled as he is being kept incarcerated without any progress in the
trial. An accused cannot be kept behind bars as an under trial for
an indefinite period.
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:32:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27556] (9 of 11) [CRLMB-7258/2025]
This Court has made an elaborate discussion with regard to
bail of an under trial accused on the ground of delay in
culmination of the trial. This Court feels that if the accused is
under detention, it is obligatory for the prosecution to complete
the trial within a reasonable period. Dealing with the identical
issue where the trial had been protracted for unreasonable period,
an elaborate discussion has been made by this Court while
deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5916/2023 in the
matter of Lichhman Ram @ Laxman Ram Vs. State decided on
08.02.2024. The relevant part of which would be apt to reproduce
here which reads as under:-
7. This Court feels that the nature and gravity of
offence and availability of material in support thereof
are not the only factors to be taken into account while
considering a bail application. The fact that trial is to be
concluded within a reasonable period of time is
imperative while considering grant of bail to an
accused. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence
that there is presumption of innocence at the pre-
conviction stage and the objective for keeping a person
in jail is to ensure his presence to face the trial and to
receive the sentence that may be passed. This
detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive
in nature. An accused is considered to be innocent until
he or she or they are proven guilty in the court of law.
8. As per the fundamental rights granted to every
citizen/person by the Constitution of India, the accused
cannot be expected to languish in custody for an
indefinite period if the trial is taking unreasonably long
time to reach the stage of conclusion. An under trial
prisoner, who is waiting for the trial to complete and
reach a conclusion about his guilt for the alleged crime,
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:32:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27556] (10 of 11) [CRLMB-7258/2025]
is not only deprived of his right to a speedy trial but his
other fundamental rights like right to liberty, freedom of
movement, freedom of practising a profession or
carrying on any occupation, business or trade and
freedom to dignity are also hampered.”
In view of the enunciation made regarding provisions for
consideration of bail and looking to the fact that the petitioner is
behind the bar since last more than five years and noticing that
culmination of trial in a near future is not a seeming fate and
considering the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of
the view that nature and gravity of offence alone are not required
to be considered at the time of granting bail but at the same time,
it has to be ensured that the trial has to be concluded within a
reasonable period if the accused in languishing in jail therefore,
without going into the niceties of the matter it is felt that the right
of the accused to have a speedy trial should be protected. Looking
to the high probability that the trial may still take a long time to
conclude this Court deems it fit to grant the benefit of bail to the
petitioner.
Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner
Mangna Ram S/o Pokar Ram, arrested in connection with F.I.R.
No.60/2020, registered at Police Station Bhojasar, District –
Jodhpur (Rural) (now District – Phalodi), 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 learned trial court, for his appearance before that
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:32:05 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27556] (11 of 11) [CRLMB-7258/2025]
court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon
to do so till completion of the trial.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI ),VJ
153-Ramesh Goyal, P.S./-
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:32:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)