Rajasthan High Court
Rajendra Choudhary S/O Shri Ram Karan ... vs Rakesh @ Rodu S/O Shri Hanuman Sahay ... on 4 April, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JP:18887]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 34/2024
Rajendra Choudhary S/o Shri Ram Karan Choudhary, R/o Village
Keshyawala, P.s. Muhana, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rakesh @ Rodu S/o Shri Hanuman Sahay Sharma,
Resident Of Village Keshyawala, P.s. Muhana, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Joshi
Mr. K.L. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
Order
04/04/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.13525/2023 whereby this Court granted bail to the respondent-accused Rakesh @ Rodu. It is revealing that the main point for consideration of granting bail was that no direct evidence with regard to commission of crime was available on record. The eye-witness account of the incident was not available.
2. The case of the prosecution was based upon some circumstantial evidence viz., recovery of knife. While granting (Downloaded on 03/05/2024 at 09:08:56 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:18887] (2 of 3) [CRLBC-34/2024] bail, it was considered by this Court that there was no material even for the name-sake so as to make a good case for the police to arrest the accused-respondent. All the evidence, in whatever form, was a post arrest evidence. The accused-respondent was behind the bars for more than three years and out of total 32 witnesses only six witnesses could have been examined till date. Thus, upon consideration of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused-respondent was directed to be released no bail. The first bail application being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10420/2021 filed on behalf of the accused-respondent was dismissed on 26.08.2022 but whereafter, no significant progress was noticed in the trial. This Court is of the view that pending a trial, an accused cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period and for the purpose of providing opportunity to the prosecution to lead evidence to prove the guilt, only a reasonable time can be provided to the prosecution to prove its case against the accused while keeping him detained. Three years and more period of detention cannot be considered to be a reasonable period of confinement during trial. Even, at that time, it was not sure that how much more time would be required in culmination of trial.
3. The parameters and factors which are to be considered at the time of granting bail to an accused are entirely different than to the factors which are to be taken into account while entertaining an application for cancellation of bail. Keeping reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and guided with the judgment passed in the case Bhagirath Singh (Downloaded on 03/05/2024 at 09:08:56 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:18887] (3 of 3) [CRLBC-34/2024] Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1984 SC 372, I feel that there are no grounds to allow the application for cancellation of bail.
4. In view of the above, there is no force in the instant application for cancellation of bail, the same is hereby dismissed.
(FARJAND ALI),J Mamta/26 (Downloaded on 03/05/2024 at 09:08:56 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)