[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Heera Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:51793) on 1 December, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:51793]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8146/2025

Heera Ram S/o Rama Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Takliya Fali
Nichlagarh P.S. Abu Road Sadar District Sirohi.
(Presently Lodged In District Jail Sirohi)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Yogendra Singh Charan
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

01/12/2025

1. The instant application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS

(439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been

arrested in the present matter. The requisite details of the matter

are tabulated herein below:

S. No.                       Particulars of the case

   2.         Police Station          Anaadara
   3.         District                Sirohi

4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC FIR

5. Offences added, if any Under Sections 302/34 & 397 of IPC

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case. It is contended by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the petitioner has

been named in the FIR nor any weapon has been recovered from

the petitioner. The whole prosecution story is based on the

(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 11:09:38 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51793] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-8146/2025]

circumstantial evidence. It is also submitted that out of total 29

prosecution witnesses, statement of only 5 witnesses have been

recorded till date, therefore, looking to the pace at which trial is

being progressed, same is not likely to be concluded in the near

future. It is further submitted that during trial, vide order dated

11.09.2025, the learned trial Court has allowed the application

filed by the complainant for re-investigation and the matter was

remanded back to the Superintendent of Police, Sirohi for re-

investigation of the matter qua co-accused Shambhoo Singh. He

further submits that in pursuance to the said order, re-

investigation has been started but till date, neither conclusion of

the investigation has been filed by the Investigating Officer nor

further statement of any prosecution witness has been recorded

thereafter. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody

since 11.11.2021 (i.e. more than 4 years). He further submits that

after a long incarceration of petitioner i.e. almost four years, re-

investigation order was passed and conclusion of re-investigation

will definitely lead to de-novo trial, which will certainly prolong the

trial of the case. On these grounds, he implore the Court to

enlarge the petitioner on bail.

3. In support of his contention, learned Counsel appearing for

the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orisa

(Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169/2023 and Mohd

Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave

Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023.

(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 11:09:38 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51793] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-8146/2025]

4. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment

of Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh Vs.

State of Punjab & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No.8523/2024), in which, while granting bail it has been

observed as under:

"9. The incident in the present case occurred on 25.06.2020 and the petitioner was arrested soon thereafter on 26.06.2020. By now, 6 co- accused have been granted bail. As the prosecution wishes to examine 17 more witnesses, the trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date.

10. Considering the above and to avoid the situation of the trial process itself being the punishment particularly when there is presumption of innocence under the Indian jurisprudence, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner - Balwinder Singh. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the learned trial court."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on

the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Avtar Singh Vs. State Of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal

Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13483/2024], decided on

22.05.2025, wherein, while allowing the bail application, it was

observed as under:

"7. In Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha passed in Special leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 4169/2023, Hon'ble the Apex Court has again passed an order dated 13th July, 2023 dealing this issue and has held that the provisional liberty(bail) overrides the prescribed impediment in the statute under Section 37 of the NDPS Act as liberty directly hits one of the most precious fundamental rights envisaged in the Constitution, that is, the right to life and personal liberty contained in Article 21.

8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner is behind the bars for around more than two years thus, looking to the fact that there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude and given the flagrant non-compliance with these mandatory provisions, this Court finds that the continued detention of the petitioner is not justified thus it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner.

9. It is nigh well settled law that at a pre-conviction stage; bail is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The

(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 11:09:38 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51793] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-8146/2025]

purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. Otherwise, it is the rule of Criminal Jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prolonged

incarceration of petitioner amounts to violation of petitioner's

fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of

the Constitution.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner is

facing trial for a heinous crime but he is not in a position to refute

the fact that entire prosecution story is based upon the

circumstantial evidence, no weapon has been recovered from the

petitioner and the petitioner is in custody for last four years and in

pursuance of the direction issued by the Sessions Court vide order

dated 11.09.2025, re-investigation of the matter qua co-accused

is under progress and the same will take significant time as well

as the fact that out of 29 prosecution witnesses, only 5 have been

examined till date.

8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and

circumstances of the case; after perusal of the record and

considering the custody period of the petitioner and the pace at

which the trial is being progressed, it is likely to take sufficiently

long time to conclude; without expressing any opinion on

merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the

petitioner on bail.

9. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS

(439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner

(Uploaded on 02/12/2025 at 11:09:38 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51793] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-8146/2025]

as named in the cause title, arrested in connection with the above

mentioned FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any

other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of

Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the

satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that

court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon

to do so till completion of the trial.

10. In case, the petitioner remains absent on any date of hearing

or makes an attempt to delay the trial by seeking unnecessary

adjournments, it shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail

granted to him by this Court. The prosecution, in such a situation,

shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of

bail granted to the petitioner today by this Court.