Bhaskar @ Bhakhar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:20830)
2025 Latest Caselaw 4 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4 Raj
Judgement Date : 1 May, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bhaskar @ Bhakhar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:20830) on 1 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2025:RJ-JD:20830]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1012/2025

Bhaskar @ Bhakhar Ram S/o Tejaram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Mandawala, Tehsil And P.s Sindhari, Dist Barmer (Balotra) (At
Present lodged at Central Jail, Jodhpur)
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Peera Ram S/o Manganaram, R/o Dabli Sara Chava , Dist
         Barmer.
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. Dinesh Vishnoi
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

01/05/2025

The present third bail application has been filed under

Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial

custody in connection with FIR No.359/2021 registered at Police

Station Sadar Barmer, District Barmer for the offences punishable

under Sections 363, 366A, 376(D), 376(2)(N) of IPC and Section

5(G)(L)/6 & 11(IV)/12 of POCSO Act.

The second bail application was dismissed as not pressed by

this Court vide order dated 08.02.2024.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

prosecutrix has been examined as PW.1 before the court and in

her statement she mentioned that she used to talk with the

present petitioner. Counsel submits petitioner is behind the bars

for more than three years and up to this time 13 prosecution

[2025:RJ-JD:20830] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-1012/2025]

witness have been examined out of total 19 prosecution witnesses

and trial of the case is yet pending. In support of his contentions,

learned counsel 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."

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

[2025:RJ-JD:20830] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-1012/2025]

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 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 is in judicial custody since 20.10.2021 and the

trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. With these

submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the

benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of bail.

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and

gone through the material available on record.

Upon perusal of statement of the prosecutrix (PW.1), it is

revealed that she used to talk to the present petitioner on call

which reflects that prosecutrix has relationship with him. The co-

accused Harish has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

Furthermore, it is not disputed that the accused petitioner has so