[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tejendra @ Ranu Bhadoriya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:53059) on 8 December, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:53059]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5862/2025
Tejendra @ Ranu Bhadoriya S/o Virendra Singh Bhadoriya, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Chomu, P.s Ader, Dist. Bhind (Mp). Currently
Residing At Rambabu Singh Tomar Kiraye Ka Makaan Ps
Pratapnagar, Dist. Bhilwara Rajasthan (Presently Lodged In Dist.
Jail Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Zeeshan Ali.
Mr. Vishal Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
08/12/2025
This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439
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 Kanchola
3. District Bhilwara
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 452, 302 and
34 of the IPC.
5. Offences added, if any Under Sections 120-B, 212 &
& 4/25 of ARMS Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and fabricated.
(Uploaded on 08/12/2025 at 05:48:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53059] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-5862/2025]
He further submits that as per the prosecution story, the petitioner
along with co-accused Kuldeep and Rajendra @ Rajesh were
present at the time of the incident and allegedly murdered the
deceased-Devi Singh. The prosecution also claims that the
deceased's wife-Pinki Kanwar allegedly conspired to commit the
offence. It is further contended that according to postmortem
report, the cause of death of deceased has been opoined to be a
fire-arm injury, whereas the weapon recovered at the instance of
petitioner, is a knife; the pistol was recovered at the instance of
co-accused Kuldeep.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused
Suraj @ Suresh, Pinki Kanwar, Rajendra @ Rajesh, and Sheru
have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated
15.12.2021, 01.02.2022, 24.01.2022 and 27.10.2021 passed in
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 16034/2021, 1407/2022,
76/2022 and 14425/2021, respectively.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has no
previous criminal antecedents; no charges have been framed
against him till date and he is in custody since 06.09.2021 (4
years, 3 months and 2 days as on today). He submits that
petitioner's continued incarceration is not warranted and since the
trial is likely to take a sufficiently long time to conclude, the
petitioner deserves to be granted the benefit of bail.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rabi Prakash Vs. State
of Orisa (Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169/2023 and
(Uploaded on 08/12/2025 at 05:48:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53059] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-5862/2025]
Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special
Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023.
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."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on
the judgment passed by a coordinate 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:
"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
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 Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be
presumed innocent until the guilt is proved.
(Uploaded on 08/12/2025 at 05:48:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53059] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-5862/2025]
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed
the bail application and submitted that as per the prosecution
material, the petitioner was present at the time of the incident and a
sharp-edged weapon was recovered from him. However, he does not
dispute the fact that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, no
charges have been framed till date and the petitioner has been in
custody since long.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon
consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
as well as the material available on record; and taking into
account that the charges have not been framed till now; the
petitioner has been in custody since 06.09.2021 (4 years, 3
months and 2 days as on today); and the trial is likely to take a
sufficiently long time to conclude; this Court, without expressing
any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, is inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner
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.
(Uploaded on 08/12/2025 at 05:48:22 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:53059] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-5862/2025]
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.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
18-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 08/12/2025 at 05:48:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
