Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kuldeep vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26278) on 28 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:26278]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14845/2024
Kuldeep S/o Chandra Bhan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Chana
Chhota, P.s. Siddhmukh, Dist Churu (Presently Lodged In Sub
Jail , Siddmukh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Dinesh Kumar Ojha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kumpawat, Asst. to
Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
28/05/2025
The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR
No.49/2019 of Police Station Siddhmukh, District Churu for the
offence punishable under Sections 302, 498-A, 34 of IPC. He has
preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner
has been inside the jail since 30.04.2019 and till date, only three
witnesses have been examined out of total cited witnesses and the
trial of the case is going at a snail's pace.
In support of her contentions, learned counsel placed
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, in
which, while dealing with the cases where fetters are placed on
Court's power to grant bail and the trial has not been completed
within a reasonable time, it has been observed as under:
[2025:RJ-JD:26278] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-14845/2024]
"17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of
statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the
UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the
constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of
violation of Part - III of the Constitution.
Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as
well as the powers exercisable under
constitutional jurisdiction can be well
harmonised. Whereas at commencement of
proceedings, the courts are expected to
appreciate the legislative policy against grant of
bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt
down where there is no likelihood of trial being
completed within a reasonable time and the
period of incarceration already undergone has
exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed
sentence. Such an approach would safeguard
against the possibility of provisions like Section
43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole
metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach
of constitutional right to speedy trial."
A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Vyas
vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application
No.14958/2022), vide order dated 17.03.2023, also observed as
follows:
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abdul
Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.3961/2022], Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.668/2020),
Tapan Das Vs. Union of India [Special Leave to
Appeal (Criminal) No.5617/2021], Kulwant Singh
Vs. State of Punjab [Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No.5187/2019], Ghanshyam Sharma
Vs. State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No.5397/2019], Nadeem Vs. State of
UP [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.1524/2022] and Mukesh Vs. The State of
Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.4089/2021] has granted bail to the accused
persons, against whom the allegations are of
transporting or possessing narcotic contraband
above commercial quantity, on the ground of
custody period and taking into consideration the
fact that the trial against the said accused persons
will take time in completion. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has ordered for release of the accused
persons who were in custody from two years to
[2025:RJ-JD:26278] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-14845/2024]
four years. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed
the bail application.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to
allow this fifth bail application solely on the ground
of custody period of the accused petitioner and
keeping in view the fact that the trial against him
has not been completed till date.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, this third bail application
filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is
directed that petitioner Umesh Vyas S/o Shri
Ganeshlal Ji shall be released on bail in connection
with FIR No.15/2019 of Police Station Charbhuja,
District Rajsamand provided he executes a
personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two
sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to
the satisfaction of learned trial court for his
appearance before that court on each and every
date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so
till the completion of the trial."
The petitioner has been inside the jail since 30.04.2019 and
the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Therefore, the
benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Learned Asst. to Addl. Advocate General has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail made by the counsel for the petitioner.
I have considered the arguments advanced before me and
gone through the progress report as well as material available on
record.
It is not disputed that the accused petitioner has so far
suffered incarceration of more than six years and the trial is still
going on, therefore, looking to the prolonged custody of the
petitioner, it would be appropriate to grant benefit of bail to the
petitioner.
Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner
[2025:RJ-JD:26278] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-14845/2024]
Kuldeep S/o Chandra Bhan shall be enlarged on bail in FIR
No.49/2019 of Police Station Siddhmukh, District Churu provided
he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two
sureties of Rs.50,000/- 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 upon to do so.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
40-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
