[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Manish vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27387) on 18 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27387]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 1919/2025
Manish S/o Shri Kailash Chandra, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village Khedi Rajpura, Tehsil Tonk Khurd, P.s. Piparlawa, Dist
Dewas (M.p.),present Resident Is Magji Ki Ghati, P.s. Mandore,
Jodhpur. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghuraj Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Ojha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/06/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of
accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 411/2018 2. Concerned Police Station Pratapnagar 3. District Jodhpur City West 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 302 & 201 of the IPC 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of impugned 27.01.2025 order
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 30.10.2018,
complainant Balwant appeared before the Station House Officer,
Police Station Pratapnagar, Jodhpur, and submitted a handwritten
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:25:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27387] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-1919/2025]
report stating that on 29.10.2018, he received information
regarding the discovery of an unidentified female body within the
jurisdiction of Police Station Pratapnagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. He
further reported that the name “Seema Manish” was inscribed on
the right hand of the deceased. Upon receiving this information,
and having failed to establish contact with his sister Seema for a
considerable period, he grew suspicious. Subsequently, he arrived
in Jodhpur along with his relatives and acquaintances. Upon
identifying the body kept in the mortuary of Mahatma Gandhi
Hospital, Jodhpur, he confirmed it to be that of his sister, Seema.
He expressed suspicion that her husband, Manish Jain, was
responsible for her death.
2.1. In light of the above, an FIR No. 411/2018, registered under
Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station
Pratapnagar. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against
the petitioner under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The petitioner
was arrested on 14.11.2018 and since then he is behind the bars.
His first, second and third applications being SBCRLMB
Nos.12687/2020, 7646/2021 & 14161/2022 dismissed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 13.01.2021,
24.01.2022 & 02.12.2023. At the time of dismissal of earlier bail
application, the trial Court was directed to expedite the trial, but
the same has yet not been culminated. Hence the instant bail
application.
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his
incarceration is not warranted. He is in custody since 14.11.2018.
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:25:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27387] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-1919/2025]
There are several flaws and laches in the case of the prosecution.
There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work
against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been
made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application
and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of
accused on bail.
5. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both
the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. This Court feels that an under trial prisoner should not be
kept confined for an indefinite period for no fault of them in
impeding the course of trial. A perusal of the material revealing
that the trial had been commenced in this matter in the year 2018
but owing to one or the other reason, the recording of the
prosecution witnesses could not be completed. It is transpiring
that out of the total 24 projected prosecution witnesses, only 7
could have been examined uptill now. After 24.08.2023, no further
witness has been examined and this Court feels that looking to the
snail’s pace progress of the trial, it would still take a long time to
reach onto a legitimate conclusion. It is also noticed that sincere
endeavors have not been made by the trial Court in proceeding
with the trial to get an early culmination of the same.
7. 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 wider connotation of the phrase
‘reasonable period’ be understood to be one year because the case
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:25:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27387] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-1919/2025]
is classified as a sessions case which would mean that the like
cases should commence and conclude within a session, that is,
one year. Even if an elastic interpretation of the expression
‘reasonable period’ is taken on the pretext of certain unavoidable
circumstances, then it can only be doubled and even in that
situation, trial has to be completed within two years while keeping
an accused in custody. Suffice it would to say that for the purpose
of determination as to whether the accused is guilty or not, only a
reasonable period can be awarded to the prosecutor if the accused
is behind the bars. The cases which are classified as session case
are purposefully directed to be heard by senior officer of District
Judge Cadre looking to his experience and rank/grade/post. In
criminal jurisprudence prevalent in India, there is a presumption
of innocence working in favour of the accused until he is proven
guilty in the trial. The trial is conducted for the purpose of
affording an opportunity to the prosecutor to prove the charges
and only for the purpose of proving 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 offence and quantum of sentence.
8. 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
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:25:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27387] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-1919/2025]
that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him
otherwise, as stated above, it is the rule of crimnal jurisprudence
that he shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is proved. In the
instant case, it has been around seven 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 undertrial for an indefinite period.
9. 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 the 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(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:25:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27387] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-1919/2025]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, 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 around seven 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
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:25:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27387] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-1919/2025]
time to conclude this Court deems it fit to grant the benefit of bail
to the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
CrPC is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as
named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the
dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
21-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 23/06/2025 at 09:25:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link