Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Naresh vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 August, 2023
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9323/2023
Naresh S/o Sh. Rajiram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village-Eta,
Tehsil-Suratgarh, District-Shri Ganganagar. (Presently Lodged At
Sub Jail, Suratgarh, District Shri Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Varsha Bissa
Mr. Ashok Upadhyay
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
17/08/2023
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 148/2020
2. Concerned Police Station Rajiyasar
3. District Ganganagar
4. Offences alleged in the FIR 302 & 34 IPC
5. Offences added, if any -
6. Date of passing of impugned 24.05.2021
order
2. The concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR lodged by
father of the deceased are that his 30 years old son had left the
house with his friend named Sandeep Soni to visit a temple and
(2 of 5) [CRLMB-9323/2023]
then, at around 11:00 p.m. on 18.08.2020, his son was killed
after being beaten up and crushed under a tractor. Upon receiving
information regarding the same on 19.08.2020, his father went to
the site of the incident along with some other known persons of
his village where Sandeep Soni and two-three other persons told
him that his son was killed by the petitioner and one Rooplal.
3. 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 accused-
petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures
and surmises. It is further contended that co-accused Suresh
Kumar has been granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court.
No witnesses have made any statement till date that attests to the
fact of presence of the petitioner-applicant at the place of incident
and there is strong possibility that the incident was an accident.
Charges have been filed and no purpose will be served by keeping
him behind the bars.
4. 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 and that the allegations against him are grave in
nature.
5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record. The following
grounds are emerging that sway the inclination of the court
towards grant of bail to the accused:
(3 of 5) [CRLMB-9323/2023]
a) The last witness was examined in the trial on 03.04.2021
and the trial is progressing at the pace of a tortoise and the right
to speedy trial of the accused-petitioner is getting infringed.
b) The petitioner is behind the bars since 19.08.2020 and a
period spanning over round about three years and incarceration of
an accused for an indefinite period pending trial is not the want of
law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed a judgment in
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1525 of 2021 titled as Ashim @ Asim
Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath
Bhattacharya @ Aseem Kumar Bhattacharya v. National
Investigation Agency vide order dated 01.12.2021 wherein
looking to the aspect that the fundamental right of the undertrial
prisoner to have a timely trial was getting violated due to long and
indefinite period of incarceration, the trial court was directed to
grant the benefit of post-arrest bail in favour of the appellant. In
yet another case titled Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Ashish Mehra
@ Monu & Anr. passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 632 of 2022 vide judgment dated 18.04.2022, it has
been held that even if there is statutory bar against grant of bail
under certain provisions of special statutes, then too, it cannot
override the liberty granted under Article 21 of Constitution of
India. The relevant portion of this judgment has been reproduced
below:
"40. Having held so, we cannot be oblivious to what
has been urged on behalf of the Respondent-Accused
that cancellation of bail by this Court is likely to be
construed as an indefinite foreclosure of his right to
seek bail. It is not necessary to dwell upon the
wealth of case law which, regardless of the stringent
provisions in a penal law or the gravity of the
(4 of 5) [CRLMB-9323/2023]
offence, has time and again recognised the
legitimacy of seeking liberty from incarceration. To
put it differently, no Accused can be subjected to
unending detention pending trial, especially when the
law presumes him to be innocent until proven guilty.
Even where statutory provisions expressly bar the
grant of bail, such as in cases under the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, this Court has
expressly ruled that after a reasonably long period of
incarceration, or for any other valid reason, such
stringent provisions will melt down, and cannot be
measured over and above the right of liberty
guaranteed Under Article 21 of the Constitution (See
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, p.
15 & 17)."
c) The person who was present at the scene when the deceased
was allegedly assaulted has stated in his deposition that the
deceased was sitting on the tractor, jumped down and then, the
accused made him fall by bumping the tractor into him and that
the fight ensued on a trivial issue, thus, the possibility of it being
an accident cannot be completely ruled out at this stage.
The genuineness of the allegations is a matter to be
adjudicated after appreciation of evidence during trial. 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.
Needless to say, none of the observations made herein under shall
affect the rights of either of the parties during trial and this Court
refrains from commenting on the niceties of the matter.
6. 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
(5 of 5) [CRLMB-9323/2023]
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
98/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
