[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:

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 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 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 t