[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Naresh Kumar Soni vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5170) on 29 January, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:5170]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3210/2025
Naresh Kumar Soni S/o Hemraj Soni, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Raycolony Barmer District Barmer Through His Wife Sanju Soni
W/o Naresh Soni Aged About 40 Police Staton Kotwali Barmer R/
o Raycolony Prabhu Bhavan Barmer (Lodged In Central Jail
Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secetary To The Government
Department Of Homer Affairs Government Of Rajasthan
Secretariat Jaipur
2. The Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate Jodhpur
3. Superintendent, Central Jail Jodhpur
4. Station House Officer, Kotwali Barmer
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka Borana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
29/01/2026
1. The petitioner, an undertrial prisoner presently confined in
Central Jail, Jodhpur, having been arrested on 19.09.2019 in
connection with Complaint No. 32/2019 dated 23.08.2019
registered at Police Station SOG, Jaipur, approaches this Court
invoking its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, seeking
interim bail on compelling humanitarian grounds. Since the date of
arrest, the petitioner has remained in continuous judicial custody,
while facing prosecution in a multitude of criminal cases spread
across diverse jurisdictions, which have yet to proceed to trial.
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:22:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5170] (2 of 4) [CRLW-3210/2025]
2. The gravamen of the petitioner's submission is predicated
upon the serious and documented medical condition of his wife,
who suffers from an intra-mural uterine fibroid, as evidenced by
authenticated medical records from the Government Medical
College & Hospital, Barmer, corroborated by radiological
investigations. The medical narrative reflects fluctuating
haematological parameters, the requirement of continuous
medical supervision, and the imperative of timely surgical
intervention. It is asserted that the petitioner's presence is
indispensable to ensure appropriate medical care, emotional
sustenance, and informed decision-making, particularly in view of
the absence of any other adult male in the family and the
dependency of two minor sons.
3. Learned counsel for the State has resisted the prayer,
submitting that the petitioner is entangled in multiple criminal
proceedings pending in various jurisdictions, the nature and
magnitude of which, it is contended, disentitle him to any
discretionary interim relief. It was further argued that the
exigencies of medical care could be addressed through alternative
arrangements and that the petitioner possesses efficacious
statutory remedies under ordinary criminal law by seeking bail in
the respective cases.
4. Having heard learned counsel and upon meticulous scrutiny
of the documentary evidence placed before this Court, it emerges
that the petitioner has endured pre-trial incarceration for a period
exceeding six years and seven months. Despite such prolonged
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:22:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5170] (3 of 4) [CRLW-3210/2025]
custody, the trials in the pending matters have not yet
commenced. The multiplicity and geographical dispersion of these
cases render the simultaneous pursuit of bail virtually
impracticable, thereby exposing the petitioner to the deleterious
effects of protracted pre-trial detention. Such detention, in the
absence of trial, invokes serious constitutional considerations
touching upon the petitioner's fundamental right to personal
liberty and the guarantee of a fair and expeditious adjudication.
5. The petitioner's plea for temporary release is buttressed by
incontrovertible medical evidence demonstrating the urgent
necessity of his presence to facilitate critical medical intervention
for his wife. The absence of any other adult family member
capable of assuming responsibility renders the petitioner's
personal attendance both indispensable and humane. Continued
denial of temporary liberty under these circumstances would be
manifestly harsh and inconsistent with the overarching
humanitarian ethos that permeates criminal jurisprudence.
6. While cognizant of the pendency of multiple criminal cases,
this Court reiterates the well-settled principle that the mere
multiplicity of cases cannot, in itself, justify indefinite pre-trial
incarceration, particularly where trials have not commenced. The
Supreme Court has, in a series of pronouncements, underscored
that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot assume a punitive
character and that liberty, being the norm and detention the
exception, must be preserved by imposing appropriate safeguards.
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:22:58 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5170] (4 of 4) [CRLW-3210/2025]
7.In the present case, the confluence of extraordinarily prolonged
pre-trial custody, the absence of trial proceedings, and the acute
and verifiable medical exigencies of the petitioner's wife compel
the conclusion that the petitioner is deserving of temporary relief.
8. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted interim bail for a period
of 30 days from the date of actual release, upon furnishing a
personal bond of Rs.50,000/- along with two solvent sureties of
Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Superintendent,
Central Jail, Jodhpur. The Superintendent shall attest the bond and
sureties and effectuate the release forthwith. The petitioner shall
return to custody upon the expiry of the bail period.
9. It is expressly clarified that this interim relief is purely
humanitarian in character, without any expression of opinion on
the merits of the pending criminal proceedings. The petitioner
shall scrupulously comply with all conditions and security
requirements imposed by the competent authority, thereby
safeguarding the interests of justice while ensuring the protection
of fundamental rights.
(FARJAND ALI),J
35-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:22:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
