[2025:RJ-JP:42737]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4^th Bail Application No. 9702/2025 Th Niranjan S/o Sukhdev, R/o Kherli Rail, Police Station Kherli, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Confined At Central Jail Alwar).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagmohan Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. J.P. Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

Order

16/10/2025

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No. Particulars of the Case

1. FIR Number 594/2020

2. Concerned Police Station Kherli 3. District Alwar

4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 143, 323, 341, 336 & 307 of the IPC

5. Offences added, if any Section 302 IPC

6. Date of passing of impugned -

order

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant Sachin filed a written report at Police Station Kherli stating that on

25.10.2020, at around 2:00 PM, a dispute arose over drainage water. During this incident, Suresh, Sachin Mangu, Sunita, and Veervati, acting in concert, allegedly attacked the complainant and others with sticks, rods, and stones. As a result, Pushpendra, Hariram, and Sunil sustained injuries, with Sunil being admitted to SMS Hospital, Jaipur, in the ICU due to the severity of his condition. Based on this report, FIR No. 594/2020 was registered and investigation was conducted. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner/accused and others under Sections 143, 323, 341, 336, and 302 of the IPC. His third bail application being SBCRLMB No.9784/2023 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 15.02.2024. Hence, the instant bail application.

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. He is in custody since 07.01.2021. There are several flaws and laches in the case of the prosecution. There are no factors at play in 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.

4. 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.

5. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. This Court feels that an under trial prisoner should not be kept confined for an indefinite period for no fault of them in impeding the course of trial. A perusal of the material revealing that the trial had been commenced in this matter in the year 2021 but owing to one or the other reason, the recording of the prosecution witnesses could not be completed. It is transpiring that out of the total 27 projected prosecution witnesses, only 18 could have been examined uptill now. This Court feels that looking to the snail’s pace progress of the trial, it would still take a long time to reach onto a legitimate conclusion. It is also noticed that sincere endeavors have not been made by the trial Court in proceeding with the trial to get an early culmination of the same.

7. As per the law, while keeping an accused detained, the opportunity to the prosecutor to lead evidence can only be given for a reasonable period. The wider connotation of the phrase ‘reasonable period’ be understood to be one year because the case is classified as a sessions case which would mean that the like cases should commence and conclude within a session, that is, one year. Even if an elastic interpretation of the expression ‘reasonable period’ is taken on the pretext of certain unavoidable circumstances, then it can only be doubled and even in that si