[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Amar Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6838) on 6 February, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:6838]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 13129/2024

 Amar Lal S/o Hanuman, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Chak-03,
 P.p.m. Ward No. 3, Padampura At Present Residing At 06, Bim
 Sarhad Jawahar Nagart, P.s. Mohangarh, Dist. Jaisalmer,raj.
 (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Jaisalmer)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
 State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. BR Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. SR Choudhary, PP



                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

06/02/2026

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of

filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance

of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are

tabulated herein below:

S.No.                         Particulars of the Case

     2.    Concerned Police Station                   Mohangarh
     3.    District                                   Jaisalmer
     4.    Offences alleged in the FIR                    Under Sections 8/21 and
                                                             29 of NDPS Act
     5.    Offences added, if any                     -

6. Date of passing of impugned 30.09.2024 order

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no

case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his

incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in

(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 03:44:26 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6838] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-13129/2024]

the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the

accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based

on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail

application and submits that the present case is not fit for

enlargement of accused on bail.

4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties

and have perused the material available on record.

5. Out of 34 witnesses, two have been examined in the trial. For

last three years, the petitioner is behind the bars. There is no

criminal antecedent against the petitioner. It has later been

found that one case in the order passed by the learned

Sessions Judge was erroneously mentioned against the

petitioner since he has no connection with FIR No.107/2023

of Police Station - Jaisalmer. A supplementary charge-sheet

has also been submitted in this case. Despite nearly three

years of detention, only two witnesses could have been

examined till now. It is easily presumable that the trial may

take long time to conclude.

6. This Court has made an elaborate discussion with regard to

bail of an under trial accused on the ground of delay in

culmination of the trial. This Court feels that if the accused is

under detention, it is obligatory for the prosecution to

complete the trial within a reasonable period. Dealing with

the identical issue where the trial had been protracted for

unreasonable period, an elaborate discussion has been made

(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 03:44:26 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6838] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-13129/2024]

by this Court while deciding the S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail

Application No.5916/2023 in the matter of Lichhman Ram @

Laxman Ram Vs. State decided on 08.02.2024. The

relevant part of which would be apt to reproduce here which

reads as under:-

7. This Court feels that the nature and gravity of offence and availability of material in support thereof are not the only factors to be taken into account while considering a bail application. The fact that trial is to be concluded within a reasonable period of time is imperative while considering grant of bail to an accused. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is presumption of innocence at the pre- conviction stage and the objective for keeping a person in jail is to ensure his presence to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. This detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive in nature. An accused is considered to be innocent until he or she or they are proven guilty in the court of law.

8. As per the fundamental rights granted to every citizen/person by the Constitution of India, the accused cannot be expected to languish in custody for an indefinite period if the trial is taking unreasonably long time to reach the stage of conclusion. An under trial prisoner, who is waiting for the trial to complete and reach a conclusion about his guilt for the alleged crime, is not only deprived of his right to a speedy trial but his other fundamental rights like right to liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of practising a profession or carrying on any occupation,

(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 03:44:26 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6838] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-13129/2024]

business or trade and freedom to dignity are also hampered.

9. Life without liberty is like a body without soul. Freedom is the open window through which pours the sunlight of the human spirit and human dignity. Personal liberty of the accused is sacrosanct and quintessential to the very spirit and structure of a civilisation. Jeremy Bentham, the great English jurist, postulated that the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the end of law. The concept of civil liberty is embedded in individualism. This simply means that the purpose of the state is to help every individual in reaching their highest development and evolving into the best personality, thereby reaching a point where law and state are not required by the society. Thus, when personal liberty of an individual is threatened, his development is in peril which is a matter of great concern. Sir Wiiliam Blackstone has deftly observed on page 134 of the first volume of his book, 'Commentaries on the Laws of England' that, "Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation or moving one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law".

Justice cannot be presumed to have been administered merely on passing of a judgment of conviction and order of sentence or a judgment of acquittal; rather administration of justice shall be deemed to have been completed when the trial is concluded within a reasonable period of time and the accused as well as the

(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 03:44:26 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6838] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-13129/2024]

complainant/victim are not made to wait for years on end to know the result of the trial.

10. One of the founding fathers and the Third President of them United States of America, Thomas Jefferson, has rightly said that, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." Though the victim/complainant party has the right to seek justice against an accused person but that does not mean that the right of the accused to a fair trial can get hampered. A fair trial is one which is concluded within a reasonable period of time.

11. It is not just a fundamental right but also a human right of every accused as incarceration for an indefinite period pending trial is in contravention of the universal rights that are imperative for us all sans any kind of discrimination. Justice P.N. Bhagwati has embodied the spirit of the afore-mentioned observation in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 in the following words:

"The expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19."

12. No one is unaware of the fact that justice delayed is justice denied. On one hand, if a victim has to wait for years to see the perpetrator get his due and on the other hand, if the accused is innocent and it is so decided that he was not guilty for the crime as alleged by the prosecution, then there is no justifiable answer that can put

(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 03:44:26 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6838] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-13129/2024]

out the fire that has been burning in the minds of the parties since the very inception of the criminal proceedings.

7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case

and the fact that petitioner is behind the bars for three years

thus, looking to the fact that there is high probability that the

trial may take long time to conclude, it is deemed suitable to

grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439

Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner

as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided

he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with