Rajasthan High Court
Nahar Singh S/O Shri Pukhraj vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:41091) on 26 September, 2024
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2024:RJ-JP:41091]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 10th Bail Application No. 10413/2024
Nahar Singh S/o Shri Pukhraj, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Kohli
Prempura Police Station Bamanwas District Sawai Madhopur
(Rja.). (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar with
Mr. P.L. Saini
Mr. Shantnu Bansal through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
26/09/2024
1. Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Misc. 10th Bail Application has been brought
under Section 483 BNSS in connection with FIR No.56/2020
registered with Police Station Bamanwas, District Sawak Madhopur
for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 188 & 302 IPC and
3/25 Arms Act. The charge-sheet was filed under Sections 323,
341, 34, 302 & 504 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act.
3. Incident of murder allegedly took place on 29.03.2020. The
petitioner is alleged to have caused firearm injury and death of
Prem Raj. Petitioner is in jail since 19.04.2020. Out of 37 cited
witnesses, only 8 have been examined up till now.
[2024:RJ-JP:41091] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10413/2024]
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwinder Singh Vs. State of
Punjab & Anr. vide Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.8523/2024 decided on 09.09.2024. and submits that in
Balwinder Singh's case also the petitioner was main assailant. He
was in jail since last four years. 17 prosecution witnesses were yet
to be examined.
5. In para 7 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed as follows:-
"An accused has a right to a fair trial and while a
hurried trial is frowned upon as it may not give
sufficient time to prepare for the defence, an
inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial would
infringe the right of an accused guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the
informant have opposed the prayer for bail.
7. Considering the facts of this case and judgment aforesaid, let
the accused-petitioner above-named be released on bail in the
aforesaid FIR, if he is not wanted in any other case, provided that
he furnishes a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of like
amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the
following conditions:-
(i) the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the trial, failing which,
the trial judge would be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
petitioner.
(ii) the petitioner shall not leave the Country without permission of
the Court otherwise it would amount to disobedience of the order
of this Court and would be a ground for cancellation of bail.
(iii) the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence.
(iv) One of the sureties shall be resident of territorial jurisdiction
of the trial court.
[2024:RJ-JP:41091] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10413/2024]
(v) the petitioner shall not interact with any of the prosecution
witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, otherwise it would be a
ground to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
13-Nitin/Jaipur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
