Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sonu Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27402) on 18 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27402]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 2183/2025
Sonu Singh S/o Arjun Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Sandhan , P.s. Achhnera , Dist Agra (U.p) (Presently Lodged At
Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navneet Poonia
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 71/2017 2. Concerned Police Station Balesar 3. District Jodhpur Rural 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 302, 201 & 397 of the IPC 5. Offences added, if any Section 302/34, 397/34 of the IPC 6. Date of passing of impugned 26.11.2024 order
2. As per the case brief, a First Information Report was lodged
on 19.05.2017 at CHC Balesar, on behalf of the applicant,
Rajuram S/o Chainaram. It was alleged that on 18.05.2017, within
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 09:57:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27402] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-2183/2025]
the revenue limits of Mauja Balesar, the applicant/accused, in
furtherance of a common intention with co-accused persons,
deceitfully lured the complainant’s brother, Hukmaram, by hiring
his pick-up vehicle bearing registration number RJ-21 GA-4353.
It is further alleged that the accused kidnapped Hukmaram with
the intent to commit his murder, and thereafter, committed
robbery of the said vehicle, killed Hukmaram by strangulation,
disposed of his body by throwing it into a pit, and attempted to
destroy the evidence of the offence. Upon conclusion of the
investigation, offences under Sections 364, 302, 201, and 397
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were found
established against the applicant/accused, and a charge sheet was
accordingly filed before the competent court. He was arrested on
20.05.2017 and since then he is behind the bars. His first bail
application being SBCRLMB No.7140/2019 dismissed as not
pressed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
24.07.2019. 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 20.05.2017.
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
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 09:57:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27402] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-2183/2025]
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 2017
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 54 projected prosecution witnesses, only 30
could have been examined uptill now. After 06.10.2023, 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
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
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 09:57:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27402] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-2183/2025]
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
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 eight 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
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 09:57:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27402] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-2183/2025]
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
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(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 09:57:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27402] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-2183/2025]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 eight years and noticing that culmination of
trial in a near future is not a seeming fate and considering the
overall facts and circumstances, furthermore, he is not having any
previous criminal antecedents except the present one, 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.
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
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 09:57:37 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27402] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-2183/2025]
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
27-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 04/07/2025 at 09:57:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)