Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Premchand @ Prema vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:1141) on 8 January, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:1141]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 10195/2024
Premchand @ Prema S/o Kanna, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Palod, Ps Dungla, Dist. Chittorgarh. (Lodged In Dist Jail
Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Saruparia.
Mr. M.S. Godara.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
08/01/2025
This fourth application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS
has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.140/2022 registered at Police Station
Dungla, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections 302, 307,
323, 341, 447, 425 and 325/34 IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel
submitted that co-accused persons namely Kalu @ Kishan (S.B.
Cr. Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.907/2023) and Laxman Gayri
(S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.1354/2023) have already been
enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.01.2023 and
(Downloaded on 08/01/2025 at 09:38:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:1141] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10195/2024]
02.02.2023. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, who is
aged about 60 years, is in custody since 07.09.2022.
Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, challan
papers and the statements of various witnesses recorded before
the competent criminal Court, learned counsel submitted that the
allegation against the present petitioner is that he pelted stones
towards the complainant party due to which Heeralal received an
injury upon his head and died on the spot. Learned counsel
submitted that the petitioner had no motive to commit the alleged
crime. The stone was pelted by him towards the deceased in the
heat of the moment, without any intention to kill him.
Drawing further attention of the Court towards the order-
sheets of the competent criminal Court, learned counsel submitted
that out of the total 34 cited prosecution witnesses, only 16
witnesses have been examined before the competent criminal
Court till date. The delay in trial is not at all attributable to the
present petitioner.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in
judicial custody; the trial of the case is likely to consume
sufficiently long time and the statements of material prosecution
witnesses have already been recorded before the competent
criminal Court, therefore, now there is no apprehension of the
petitioner influencing them. On these grounds, he implored the
Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of
allegations against the petitioner, he does not deserve to be
(Downloaded on 08/01/2025 at 09:38:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:1141] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-10195/2024]
enlarged on bail. However, he was not in position to refute the fact
that the co-accused persons namely Kalu @ Kishan and Laxman
Gayri, who had allegedly attacked and thrashed the deceased and
the other injured persons, have already been enlarged on bail by
this Court. He was also not in a position to refute the fact that till
date, out of total 34 cited prosecution witnesses, statements of
only 16 witnesses have been recorded before the competent
criminal Court.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the co-
accused persons namely Kalu @ Kishan and Laxman Gayri, who
had allegedly beaten the deceased and the other injured persons,
have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. This Court also
prima facie finds that till date, out of total 34 cited prosecution
witnesses, statements of only 16 witnesses have been recorded
before the competent criminal Court. This Court also prima facie
finds that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the
petitioner influencing the remaining prosecution witnesses or
tampering with evidence or fleeing away from justice, in case he is
enlarged on bail.
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India
Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, 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, 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(Downloaded on 08/01/2025 at 09:38:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:1141] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-10195/2024]bail on grounds of violation of Part – III of the
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 rigors 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.”
Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of
the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the present fourth bail application under
Section 483 of BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-
petitioner Premchand @ Prema S/o Kanna arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.140/2022 registered at Police Station
Dungla, District Chittorgarh, 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
court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon
to do so till completion of the trial.
It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
167-Tikam/-
(Downloaded on 08/01/2025 at 09:38:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)