Suresh Jakhar Alias Tonu Jakhar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:35851) on 12 August, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Suresh Jakhar Alias Tonu Jakhar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:35851) on 12 August, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:35851]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 8916/2025

 Suresh Jakhar Alias Tonu Jakhar S/o Bastiram, Aged About 26
 Years, Resident Of Chawta, Police Station Roll, Tehsil Jayal,
 District Nagaur Rajasthan (Presently Lodged In District Jail
 Nagaur)
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Vishal Sharma
                                   Mr. Robin Singh
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, Dy.G.A.
                                   Mr. Ravindra Acharya
                                   Mr. Pappu Sangwa


                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

12/08/2025

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                                 125/2022
     2.    Concerned Police Station                   Jayal
     3.    District                                   Nagaur
     4.    Offences alleged in the FIR                Under Sections 143, ,
                                                          120-B, , ,
                                                           of IPC & 3/25 of
                                                          Arms Act
     5.    Offences added, if any                     -
     6.    Date of passing of impugned 05.07.2025
               order

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no

case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his

(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:52:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35851] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-8916/2025]

incarceration is not warranted. 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.

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 bail application of this petitioner was rejected by this

Court vide detailed order dated 03.12.2024 solely and wholly

placing reliance upon the pre-charge evidence, particularly, the

statement of prosecution witness – Sita Ram who has now been

examined as P.W.-2. As as a matter of fact – Sita Ram is the star

witness who alone was available with the deceased when the

incident took place. He also sustained some injuries. This Court

was of the view that reliance must be placed upon the statement

of an injured eye-witness and that is why the bail was rejected.

Interestingly, the prosecution witnesses tried to distort the factual

narrative of the incident. There is embellishment, over implication

and exaggeration, easily noticeable, perceivable and traceable

from the record of the prosecution. P.W.-2 (Sita Ram), in his

examination-in-chief itself stated as under:-

ÞeSa jkts”k] “kSrkujke vkSj lqjs”k HkkV ge pkjksa rjukm ls jksfg.kk jksM ij
Vksy ukds ds ikl igqaps rks ogka ij ykykjke] fd”kukjke] ctq mQZ ctjax]
viqokZ mQZ egsUnz xksnkjk] lqjs”k HkkV] “kSrkujke] lghjke VkaMh] tqxyfd”kksj]
galjkt] jk/kkfd”ku] Vksuw tk[kM+] nqxkZ <kdk] lqjsUnz xksfy;k] jkefuokl
(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:52:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35851] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8916/2025]

bukf.k;ka] lqfuy bukf.k;ka] vfuy bukf.k;ka o lqfuy dkyk vkSj ikap&lkr
vU; O;fDr Fks mUgksausa esjs o jkts”k ds lkFk esa xEHkhj ekjihV dhA ykykjke
ds gkFk esa fiLVy o ykSgs dk ikbZi o ckdh lHkh ds gkFk esa lfj;s] ykSgs dk
ikbZi o ykfB;ka FkhA bu lHkh usa eq>s o jkts”k ds lkFk xEHkhj :i ls
ekjihV dh vkSj eSa csgks”k gks x;kA eq>s lqcg 3 ls 4 cts gks”k vk;k rks eSusa
ns[kk jkts”k dh e`R;q gks pqdh FkhAß

6. A glimpse upon the above mentioned statement of the key

witness – Sita Ram making it abundantly clear that he named

around 11 persons as an assailant who made assault over him and

the deceased. Later this man implicated around 20 persons.

7. Be that as it may, only six persons were charge-sheeted,

investigation was kept pending for two persons and some were

absolved, rather exonerated by the police itself. All except the

petitioner, who were charge-sheeted, have been extended the

benefit of bail. If reliance is placed upon the testimony of this

witness – Sita Ram (P.W.-2), then the case of the petitioner in no

manner distinguishable or has a distinct feature than to the case

of the other persons who either have been exonerated or have

been granted bail by this Court. In fact the predicament of this

Court is that there is no other material based upon which the

detention of the present petitioner alone can be justified. The

witness – Sita Ram falls within the category of a witness who is

neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and as such the truth

and falsehood have deeply been intermingled together and now it

has become very ticklish, rather impossible for this Court to

separate the chaff from the grain and better it would be that the

above issue be adjudicated by the trial court after taking on record

the entire material on record. Noticing that there are no special

features insinuating the petitioner alone for the alleged crime, this

(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:52:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:35851] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-8916/2025]

Court, therefore, feels persuaded to extend the benefit of bail to

the petitioner also. This has also been pondered that the eye-

witness has been examined in the trial and thus, there remains no

chances of either hampering or tampering the prosecution

witness. No flight risk has been apprehended by the respondent –

State or the complainant. Thus, taking into account the totality of

facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering 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 in the present matter.

8. 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
42-divya/-

(Downloaded on 13/08/2025 at 09:52:30 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)