[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Shambhu Lal Bheel vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:53081) on 8 December, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:53081]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6550/2025

Shambhu Lal Bheel S/o Devaji Bheel, Aged About 49 Years, R/o-
Patloi, P.S.-Javada, Tehsil-Rawatbhata, District-Chittorgarh (Raj.)
(At Present Lodged At Sub-Jail Begun, District Chittorgarh)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Manish Kumar Pitaliya
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

08/12/2025 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          Bhaisrodgarh
   3.       District                Chittorgarh

4. Offences alleged in the Under Section 302 of IPC FIR

5. Offences added, if any -

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the

FIR was registered in 2010 but the petitioner was arrested in 2023

for the offence committed 13 years back. It is contended that as

per the prosecution story, the allegation against the petitioner is of

(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 12:45:57 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53081] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-6550/2025]

committing murder of Kanhaiyalal with an axe and at the time of

in incident, one Pappu was present at the spot and he is stated to

be the eye-witness to the incident. The said Pappu (sole eye-

witness) was examined as PW-1 who has not supported the

prosecution story and turned hostile. His statement recorded

before the trial Court reads as under:-

Þ'kiFk fnykbZ xbZ& lky 2010 dh ckr gSA eSa ml oDr NksVk Fkk esjh mez ml oDr 10-11 lky FkhA gekjs xkao iryksbZ dh ckr gSA xokg esa esjk uke fy[kk fn;k tcfd eq>s dqN ekywe ugha gSA esjs HkS;k dk eMZj gks x;k FkkA eSa NksVk Fkk esjh mez de Fkh blfy, eq>s irk ugha gS fdlus eMZj fd;k FkkA uksV%& vij yksd vfHk;kstd us xokg dks i{knzksgh ?kksf"kr djus dk fuosnu fd;kA fuosnu mfpr eku xokg ls ftjg dh vuqefr dh xbZA ftjg }kjk vij yksd vfHk;kstd%& iqfyl us esjs ls iwNrkN dh gks rks ;kn ugha gS tc eSa NksVk FkkA iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ ih&01 dks Cls D Hkkx xokg lqudj crk;k fd ;g c;ku eSus iqfyl dks ugha fn;s FksA eSa ml oDr NksVk Fkk fdruh ckrs gSa esjs dks irk ugha gSA ;g lgh gS fd 'kEHkwyky o dUgS;kyky dkdk&Hkrhtk yxrs gSA dUgS;kyky ds pkpk 'kaHkwyky yxrs FksA esjs 'kaHkwyky pkpk yxrs gSaA esjh cgu dk uke pUnk gSA ;g esjs dks irk ugha gS fd pUnk Hkh ekSds ij ekStwn FkhA ;g dguk xyr gS fd dUgS;kyky ds flj esa 'kaHkwyky us dqYgkM+h dh ekjh gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa vkokt lqudj ekSds ij x;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd 'kaHkwyky esjs dkdk yxus ls eSa vkt >wBs c;ku ns jgk gwaA ftjg }kjk vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls %& ;g lgh gS fd eSa oDr ?kVuk ekStwn ugha FkkA eSaus dksbZ ?kVuk ugha ns[kh FkhA esjs HkS;k dks fdlus ekjk eq>s irk ugha gSA eSus ?kVuk ugha ns[khA fdlh us esjk xokg esa uke fy[kk fn;kk FkkA esjs iqfyl esa c;ku ugha gw;sA eSaus dUgS;kyky dks fdlh dks ekjrs gq;s ugha ns[kkA eSa ml oDr gj pht le>rk FkkA vt[kqn dgk esjh mez de Fkh blfy, eSa de le>rk FkkAß

It is further submitted that other material witnesses namely

Chanda (PW-2), Soji (PW-3) and Nanuram (PW-7) who were at

nearby place to the incident and reached on the spot after the

incident, have also not supported the prosecution story and turned

hostile. It is also submitted that statement of complainant -

Bapulal has been recorded as PW-4 who in his cross-examination,

(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 12:45:57 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53081] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-6550/2025]

has admitted that he has not seen any person inflicting injuries to

Kanhailal (deceased).

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this

Court towards the status of trial and pointed out that out of total

24 witnesses, only 10 witnesses have been examined till date.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner

is in custody since 10.04.2023 i.e. more than 2 years 8 months

and the pace of the trial is very slow and petitioner has a

fundamental right of speedy trial.

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

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."

(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 12:45:57 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53081] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-6550/2025]

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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is in judicial custody for last 2 years and 8 months, but trial has

not been concluded. So, petitioner's right of speedy trial is being

affected and looking to the pace of trial, the trial will take long

time to conclude. He therefore prayed that the benefit of bail may

be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the bail application and submitted that as per the

allegation, the petitioner has committed murder of Kanhaiyalal

with an axe. He further submitted that out of total 24 witnesses,

10 witnesses have been examined and the trial is at mid stage.

Looking to the seriousness of the offence alleged, he may not be

(Uploaded on 09/12/2025 at 12:45:57 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53081] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-6550/2025]

enlarged on bail. However, he does not refute the fact that Pappu

(PW-1) and other witnesses namely Chanda (PW-2), Soji (PW-3)

and Nanuram (PW-7) have turned hostile.

Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and

circumstances of the case as well as perused the material

available on record, considering the fact that Pappu (PW-1) (sole

eye-witness to the incident) and other witnesses namely Chanda

(PW-2), Soji (PW-3) and Nanuram (PW-7) have turned hostile and

looking to the long incarceration of the petitioner, without

expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court

is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS

(439 of 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.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- 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.