Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ransaram @ Ramesh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18468) on 15 April, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:18468]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 1697/2025
Ransaram @ Ramesh S/o Jhalaram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Jodfali Tikhi Magri Rahida Jod, P.s. Rohida, Dist Sirohi (Presently
Lodged At Dist Jail Sirohi)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JVS Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
15/04/2025
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 87/2019 2. Concerned Police Station Saroopganj 3. District Sirohi 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 447, 302, 323 & 34 of IPC 5. Offences added, if any Under Section 325 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
the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the
(Downloaded on 17/04/2025 at 09:21:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18468] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-1697/2025]
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. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected by
this Court vide order dated 22.05.2024 passed in SBCRLMB
No.5926/2024.
6. 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 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
(Downloaded on 17/04/2025 at 09:21:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18468] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-1697/2025]
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.
7. 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
crimnal jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent
until his guilt is proved. In the instant case, it has been
around three 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.
(Downloaded on 17/04/2025 at 09:21:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18468] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-1697/2025]
8. 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 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
(Downloaded on 17/04/2025 at 09:21:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18468] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-1697/2025]
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.
9. Life without liberty is like a body without soul.
Freedom is the open window through which pours
the sunlight of the human spirit and human
dignity. Personal liberty of the accused is
sacrosanct and quintessential to the very spirit
and structure of a civilisation. Jeremy Bentham,
the great English jurist, postulated that the
greatest happiness of the greatest number is the
end of law. The concept of civil liberty is
embedded in individualism. This simply means
that the purpose of the state is to help every
individual in reaching their highest development
and evolving into the best personality, thereby
reaching a point where law and state are not
required by the society. Thus, when personal
liberty of an individual is threatened, his
development is in peril which is a matter of great
concern. Sir Wiiliam Blackstone has deftly
observed on page 134 of the first volume of his
book, ‘Commentaries on the Laws of England’
that,
“Personal liberty consists in the power of
locomotion, of changing situation or moving one’s
person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination
may direct, without imprisonment or restraint
unless by due process of law”.
(Downloaded on 17/04/2025 at 09:21:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18468] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-1697/2025]
Justice cannot be presumed to have been
administered merely on passing of a judgment of
conviction and order of sentence or a judgment of
acquittal; rather administration of justice shall be
deemed to have been completed when the trial is
concluded within a reasonable period of time
and the accused as well as the
complainant/victim are not made to wait for years
on end to know the result of the trial.
10. One of the founding fathers and the Third
President of them United States of America,
Thomas Jefferson, has rightly said that, “Rightful
liberty is unobstructed action, according to our
will, within limits drawn around us by the equal
rights of others.” Though the victim/complainant
party has the right to seek justice against an
accused person but that does not mean that the
right of the accused to a fair trial can get
hampered. A fair trial is one which is concluded
within a reasonable period of time.
11. It is not just a fundamental right but also a
human right of every accused as incarceration for
an indefinite period pending trial is in
contravention of the universal rights that are
imperative for us all sans any kind of
discrimination. Justice P.N. Bhagwati has
embodied the spirit of the afore-mentioned
observation in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of
India (UOI) and Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC
597 in the following words:
“The expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is
of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of
rights which go to constitute the personal liberty
of man and some of them have raised to the
status of distinct fundamental rights and given
additional protection under Article 19.”
(Downloaded on 17/04/2025 at 09:21:54 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18468] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-1697/2025]
12. No one is unaware of the fact that justice
delayed is justice denied. On one hand, if a victim
has to wait for years to see the perpetrator get
his due and on the other hand, if the accused is
innocent and it is so decided that he was not
guilty for the crime as alleged by the prosecution,
then there is no justifiable answer that can put
out the fire that has been burning in the minds of
the parties since the very inception of the criminal
proceedings.
9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that petitioner is behind the bars for more than
four and half years thus, looking to the fact that there is high
probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, it is
deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner.
10. 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
18-Samvedana/-
(Downloaded on 17/04/2025 at 09:21:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)