SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 644

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
NARESH @ MOKHAM MEGHWANSHI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 14731 / 2024



Advocates:
Ms. Manjula Choudhary, Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, PP

The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence of motive and prolonged judicial custody, emphasizing the right to timely trial.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - The petitioner, arrested for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, seeks bail after being in judicial custody since 03.07.2020 - The court finds no evidence of motive and acknowledges the slow pace of trial proceedings - The stone allegedly used in the crime was recovered from an open place, indicating lack of exclusive knowledge by the petitioner - The court deems it just to grant bail considering the circumstances. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

(B) Judicial Custody - The prolonged judicial custody of the petitioner without sufficient evidence against him warrants consideration for bail - The court emphasizes the importance of timely trials and the rights of the accused. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.72/2020 for murder and destruction of evidence. The deceased was last seen with the petitioner, but there are no eyewitnesses to the crime. The petitioner claims false implication and lack of motive. The trial has been delayed with only 14 out of 34 witnesses recorded.

Findings of Court:
The court finds that the petitioner has been in custody for over four years without sufficient evidence of motive, and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. The recovery of the stone does not conclusively link the petitioner to the crime.

Issues: The main issues addressed include the sufficiency of evidence against the petitioner, the implications of prolonged judicial custody, and the appropriateness of granting bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of motive and the slow pace of trial, combined with the nature of the evidence, justified the grant of bail to the petitioner. The court highlighted the need for timely justice and the rights of the accused.

Result: Bail application allowed.

ORDER :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.72/2020 registered at Police Station Rayla, Dist. Bhilwara, for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.07.2020. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and the challan papers, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dead body of the deceased- Leela Regar was found near Bhilwara Highway No.79, in the eastern side on mud way Lambia Kallan. During the course of the investigation, the investigating agency found that the deceased was last seen in the company of the present petitioner by her brother- Tulsiram.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner had no motive to commit the alleged crime. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident. The statements of the last seen witness- Tulsiram (PW-09) have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court which is not sufficient to establish complicity of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime.

5. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.07.2020 and till date, statements of only 14 cited prosecution witnesses have been recorded before the competent criminal Court out of 34 cited prosecution witnesses. Looking at the speed at which trial is being conducted against the petitioner, the same is not likely to be concluded in the near future. It was urged that no case for the alleged offences is made out against the present petitioner and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against the grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjunctures and surmises.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the present case not only the petitioner was seen in the company of the deceased but a stone containing blood stain which was allegedly used by the petitioner to commit the alleged crime has also been recovered at his instance. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 03.07.2020; there is no evidence of motive for the petitioner to commit the alleged crime. The statements of the last seen witness- Tulsiram (PW-09) have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court and therefore now there is no apprehension of petitioner influencing him. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, though a stone containing blood stain which was allegedly used by the petitioner to commit the alleged crime has been recovered at his instance, but since the stone has been recovered from an open place, it cannot be said that the place of recovery was within the exclusive knowledge of the present petitioner. Thus, looking to the factual aspect of the matter and the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since last more than four years and there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, this Court deems it just and appropriate to extend the benefit of bail to the present petitioner.

8. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Naresh @ Mokham Meghwanshi S/o Shri Ratan Lal Meghwanshi arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.72/2020 registered at Police Station Rayla, Dist. Bhilwara, shall be released on b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top