Prolonged custody without trial completion and lack of specific allegations justify granting bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.

ORDER :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

The present fourth bail application has been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.28/2021 registered at Police Station Goluwala, District Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 449, 364, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind the bars for more than three years and no specific averment has been made against the present petitioner. Further, counsel submits that co-accused Rajat @ Bablu has been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court only on the ground of delay of trial.

3. 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.”

4. 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 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.”

5. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 16.03.2021 and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the benefit of b