Rajesh Meena @ Raju S/O Shri Mangalchand vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:20858) on 16 May, 2025

0
9

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

Rajesh Meena @ Raju S/O Shri Mangalchand vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:20858) on 16 May, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JP:20858]

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                        BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 10232/2024

 Rajesh Meena @ Raju S/o Shri Mangalchand, Aged About 24
 Years, R/o Gram Doodhawala, Post Jeetawala, Tehsil Bassi, P.s.
 Kanota, Jaipur. (Presently Accused Petitioner Is Confined In
 Central Jail, Jaipur).
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.S. Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Jitendra Singh

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

(Through Video Conferencing)
Order

16/05/2025

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of

filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 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                                  286/2021
     2.    Concerned Police Station                    Kanota
     3.    District                                    Jaipur (East)
     4.    Offences alleged in the FIR                 Under Sections 323, 341
                                                          & 307/34 of IPC
     5.    Offences added, if any                       Sections 302 & 120B of
                                                            IPC


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. There are no factors at play in

(Downloaded on 19/05/2025 at 09:59:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20858] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10232/2024]

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.

3. 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.

4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties

and have perused the material available on record.

5. Indisputably, the petitioner has been languishing in jail for

the last four years, and the trial is not progressing. Out of a

total of thirty-eight witnesses, only seven have been

examined so far. Looking at the snail’s pace at which the trial

is proceeding, it can reasonably be speculated that several

more years may be consumed before arriving at a legitimate

conclusion.

6. The co-accused, Rohit and others, have already been

enlarged on bail. The eyewitness account of the incident is

not available, and at this stage, the submission cannot be

ignored that the circumstances brought against the petitioner

are neither definite in tendency nor conclusive in nature, and

do not point clearly towards his guilt.

7. Be that as it may. This Court is of the considered opinion that

an accused should remain in custody pending trial only for a

reasonable period. If the case is triable by a Sessions Court,

the trial should ideally be completed within a session, which

generally means within one year. In special circumstance-

(Downloaded on 19/05/2025 at 09:59:20 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:20858] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10232/2024]

such as a large number of prosecution witnesses, limited

court working days, the unavailability of lawyers, and other

unavoidable situations- the time for completion of trial may

be reasonably extended. However, under no stretch of

imagination can such delay be justified for a period exceeding

four years.

8. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to

conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is

deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner

in the present matter.

9. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439

Cr.P.C. 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

Samvedana/9

(Downloaded on 19/05/2025 at 09:59:20 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here