Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ransaram @ Ramesh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18468) on 15 April, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:18468]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 1697/2025

 Ransaram @ Ramesh S/o Jhalaram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
 Jodfali Tikhi Magri Rahida Jod, P.s. Rohida, Dist Sirohi (Presently
 Lodged At Dist Jail Sirohi)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. JVS Deora
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.



                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

15/04/2025

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

     2.    Concerned Police Station                    Saroopganj
     3.    District                                    Sirohi
     4.    Offences alleged in the FIR                 Under Sections 447, 302,
                                                          323 & 34 of IPC
     5.    Offences added, if any                      Under Section 325 of IPC

2. 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

[2025:RJ-JD:18468] (2 of 7) [CRLMB-1697/2025]

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 earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected by

this Court vide order dated 22.05.2024 passed in SBCRLMB

No.5926/2024.

6. As per the law, while keeping an accused detained, the

opportunity to the prosecutor to lead evidence can only be

given for a reasonable period. The wider connotation of the

phrase 'reasonable period' be understood to be one year

because the case is classified as a sessions case which would

mean that the like cases should commence and conclude

within a session, that is, one year. Even if an elastic

interpretation of the expression 'reasonable period' is taken

on the pretext of certain unavoidable circumstances, then it

can only be doubled and even in that situation, trial has to be

completed within two years while keeping an accused in

custody. Suffice it would to say that for the purpose of

determination as to whether the accused is guilty or not, only

a reasonable period can be awarded to the prosecutor if the

accused is behind the bars. The cases which are classified as

session case are purposefully directed to be heard by senior

[2025:RJ-JD:18468] (3 of 7) [CRLMB-1697/2025]

officer of District Judge Cadre looking to his experience and

rank/grade/post. In criminal jurisprudence prevalent in India,

there is a presumption of innocence working in favour of the

accused until he is proven guilty in the trial. The trial is

conducted for the purpose of affording an opportunity to the

prosecutor to prove the charges and only for the purpose of

proving guilt or adducing evidence on record, an

unreasonable period of time cannot be granted as the same

infringes the fundamental rights of an accused which are

otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution of India. While

entertaining a bail plea the Court of law is required to take

into account the above-mentioned aspect of the matter as

well beside the gravity of offence and quantum of sentence.

7. It is well-nigh settled law that at pre-conviction stage, bail is

a rule and denial of the same should be an exception. The

purpose for keeping an accused behind the bars during trial

would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction and

to ensure that he may receive the sentence as would be

awarded to him otherwise, as stated above, it is the rule of

crimnal jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent

until his guilt is proved. In the instant case, it has been

around three years have elapsed since the accused was sent

to jail and his rights and liberties are getting stifled as he is

being kept incarcerated without any progress in the trial. An

accused cannot be kept behind bars as an undertrial for an

indefinite period.

[2025:RJ-JD:18468] (4 of 7) [CRLMB-1697/2025]

8. This Court has made an elaborate discussion with regard to

bail of an under trial accused on the ground of delay in

culmination of the trial. This Court feels that if the accused is

under detention, it is obligatory for the prosecution to

complete the trial within a reasonable period. Dealing with

the identical issue where the trial had been protracted for

unreasonable period, an elaborate discussion has been made

by this Court while deciding the S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail

Application No.5916/2023 in the matter of Lichhman Ram @

Laxman Ram Vs. State decided on 08.02.2024. The

relevant part of which would be apt to reproduce here which

reads as under:-

7. This Court feels that the nature and gravity of offence and availability of material in support thereof are not the only factors to be taken into account while considering a bail application. The fact that trial is to be concluded within a reasonable period of time is imperative while considering grant of bail to an accused. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is presumption of innocence at the pre-

conviction stage and the objective for keeping a person in jail is to ensure his presence to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. This detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive in nature. An accused is considered to be innocent until he or she or they are proven guilty in the court of law.

8. As per the fundamental rights granted to every citizen/person by the Constitution of India, the accused cannot be expected to languish in custody for an indefinite period if the trial is

[2025:RJ-JD:18468] (5 of 7) [CRLMB-1697/2025]

taking unreasonably long time to reach the stage of conclusion. An under trial prisoner, who is waiting for the trial to complete and reach a conclusion about his guilt for the alleged crime, is not only deprived of his right to a speedy trial but his other fundamental rights like right to liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of practising a profession or carrying on any occupation, business or trade and freedom to dignity are also hampered.

9. Life without liberty is like a body without soul. Freedom is the open window through which pours the sunlight of the human spirit and human dignity. Personal liberty of the accused is sacrosanct and quintessential to the very spirit and structure of a civilisation. Jeremy Bentham, the great English jurist, postulated that the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the end of law. The concept of civil liberty is embedded in individualism. This simply means that the purpose of the state is to help every individual in reaching their highest development and evolving into the best personality, thereby reaching a point where law and state are not required by the society. Thus, when personal liberty of an individual is threatened, his development is in peril which is a matter of great concern. Sir Wiiliam Blackstone has deftly observed on page 134 of the first volume of his book, 'Commentaries on the Laws of England' that, "Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation or moving one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law".

[2025:RJ-JD:18468] (6 of 7) [CRLMB-1697/2025]

Justice cannot be presumed to have been administered merely on passing of a judgment of conviction and order of sentence or a judgment of acquittal; rather administration of justice shall be deemed to have been completed when the trial is concluded within a reasonable period of time and the accused as well as the complainant/victim are not made to wait for years on end to know the result of the trial.

10. One of the founding fathers and the Third President of them United States of America, Thomas Jefferson, has rightly said that, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." Though the victim/complainant party has the right to seek justice against an accused person but that does not mean that the right of the accused to a fair trial can get hampered. A fair trial is one which is concluded within a reasonable period of time.

11. It is not just a fundamental right but also a human right of every accused as incarceration for an indefinite period pending trial is in contravention of the universal rights that are imperative for us all sans any kind of discrimination. Justice P.N. Bhagwati has embodied the spirit of the afore-mentioned observation in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 in the following words:

"The expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19."

[2025:RJ-JD:18468] (7 of 7) [CRLMB-1697/2025]

12. No one is unaware of the fact that justice delayed is justice denied. On one hand, if a victim has to wait for years to see the perpetrator get his due and on the other hand, if the accused is innocent and it is so decided that he was not guilty for the crime as alleged by the prosecution, then there is no justifiable answer that can put out the fire that has been burning in the minds of the parties since the very inception of the criminal proceedings.

9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case

and the fact that petitioner is behind the bars for more than

four and half years thus, looking to the fact 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.

10. 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