Rajendra Choudhary S/O Shri Ram Karan ... vs Rakesh @ Rodu S/O Shri Hanuman Sahay ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 2535 Raj/2

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

[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

[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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)