Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1351 (RAJ)

Mangna Ram S/o Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2025-06-19

CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

body2025
ORDER : 1. This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.60/2020, registered at Police Station Bhojasar, District – Jodhpur (Rural) (now District - Phalodi) for offences under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 341, 323, 354, 440, 447, 307 & 302 of the IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 04.05.2020 at around 10:00 pm, several persons including Rajesh, Hari Prakash @ Guddu, Rakesh, Puna Ram, Magna Ram (present petitioner), Pokar Ram, Jugtaram, Krishna Ram, Sukhram, Shyamlal along with 10- 12 other persons barged into the property of the son of the complainant while carrying lethal weapons and took out the same from tractor and started beating Harish, witnessing the same Ganpat Lal and Shiv Lal tried to rescue him but they were also beaten as well. In furtherance, the clothes of Urmila, (daughter- in-law of the complainant) were torn by the accused persons. In connection with the said incident, the aforementioned FIR was lodged, while the complainant’s son was in coma; however, later on during investigation as Harish died, thus offence under Section 302 was also added. Thereafter on 29.07.2020, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 341, 323, 354, 440, 447, 307 & 302 IPC and subsequently another charge-sheet was filed on 09.11.2020. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused has not caused any injuries to the deceased Harish or any other injured persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no substantial piece of evidence available on record as regard to any participation of the petitioner in the alleged incident. The petitioner is old aged and suffering from ailments. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused-petitioner is in Judicial custody since since 07.05.2020. Considering the long period of custody, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12113/2024, Hari Prakash @ Guddu Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. The petitioner is old aged and suffering from ailments. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused-petitioner is in Judicial custody since since 07.05.2020. Considering the long period of custody, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12113/2024, Hari Prakash @ Guddu Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. vide order dated 15.10.2024, has directed the trial Court to conclude the trail within a period of six months, despite that only the statements of 12 witnesses have been recorded out of the total 28 witnesses cited by the prosecution. The complainant party and the prosecution with an intention to delay the trial, are not producing the witnesses in the Court for recording their statements so that accused be kept in incarceration for a long period. This fact is clear from the order- sheets of the learned Trial Court. The complainant party has made a complaint that the accused persons are threatening them. In this regard, police has made interrogation and recorded the statement of victim Urmila who stated that no one has stopped her from giving statement before the Court and nor she has been threatened. Thus, it is clear that in case petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is no apprehension of witnesses to be threatened. He, therefore, submitted that the accused-petitioner cannot be kept in the jail for an indefinite period. 6. In support of the contention aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb , (2021) 3 SCC 713 , in which, while dealing with the cases where fetters are placed on Court’s power to grant bail and the trial has not been completed within a reasonable time, it has been observed as under:- “17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part – III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the case of Umesh Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No. 14958/2022) , in which vide order dated 17.03.2023, the Court has 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. 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.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the order dated 06.06.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijayraj Vs. State of Rajasthan , Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8255/2025 and in the case of Suresh Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan , Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3413/2025 decided on 23.05.2025, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to the accused-appellants. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the lathi which was recovered in this case does not have blood stained on it and the FSL report is clear in this regard. No witness has stated that the accused died due to head injury inflicted by the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that eye-witnesses whose statements have been recorded, have not attributed any specific role to the accused petitioner. The deceased sustained head injury and due to which he died. No witness in his statement has stated that the head injury has been caused to the deceased by the present petitioner and this fact has also not come during the course of investigation. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused is in judicial custody for more than five years and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, he prayed that the accused-petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 12. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused is in judicial custody for more than five years and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, he prayed that the accused-petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 12. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that accused along with other accused persons armed with weapons, entered into the house of the complainant and assaulted on the son of the complainant and his wife. They torn the clothes of Urmila, the wife of Harish and the daughter-in-law of the complainant. The accused persons have committed a heinous crime of murder of Harish, the son of the complainant. 13. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused has an active role in commission of murder of Harish. Accused petitioner is a companion of the hardcore criminal Rajesh and Puna Ram @ Poonam Chand. Police has also declared a reward of Rs.25,000/- on apprehension of the accused Rajesh. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the co-accused Rakesh, Sukhram and Hariprakash @ Guddu have been rejected by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 14.03.2022, 05.12.2023 and 29.05.2024, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1105/2022, 8997/2023 and 4813/2024. The accused persons are threatening the witnesses not to appear in the Court and trying to delay the trial. 15. Therefore, they prayed that looking to the gravity of the offence, benefit of bail may not be extended to the petitioner. The deceased sustained head injury and due to which he died. It is not clear from the statements of the witnesses that the head injury has been caused to the deceased by the present petitioner and this fact has also not come during the course of investigation. The accused has caused any injury on the body of the deceased, the same has not come on record. The accused is aged about 66 years. 16. Despite the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to the trial Court to conclude the trail within a period of six months, only the statements of 12 witnesses have been recorded out of the total 28 witnesses cited by the prosecution. 16 witnesses remained to be examined. 17. The accused is aged about 66 years. 16. Despite the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to the trial Court to conclude the trail within a period of six months, only the statements of 12 witnesses have been recorded out of the total 28 witnesses cited by the prosecution. 16 witnesses remained to be examined. 17. From perusal of the order-sheets of the learned trial Court, it reveals that no sincere efforts are being made by the learned trial Court to examined the remaining witnesses and no effective orders have been passed by the learned trial Court in this regard. Long dates have been granted by the Presiding Officer and the trail of the case has not been concluded within a period of six months despite the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 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 accused-petitioner cannot be kept in the jail for an indefinite period. The trial is conducted for the purpose of affording an opportunity to the prosecution to prove the charges and only for the purpose of providing guilt or adducing evidence on record, an unreasonable period of time cannot be granted as the same infringes the fundamental rights of an accused which are otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution of India. While entertaining a bail plea, the Court of law is required to take into account the above mentioned aspect of the matter as well beside the gravity of the offence and quantum of sentence. 18. It is well-nigh settled law that at pre-conviction stage, bail is a rule and denial of the same should be an exception. The purpose for keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction and to ensure that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him otherwise, as stated above, it is the rule of criminal jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is proved. In the instant case, it has been around five years have elapsed since the accused was sent to jail and his rights and liberties are getting stifled as he is being kept incarcerated without any progress in the trial. An accused cannot be kept behind bars as an under trial for an indefinite period. 19. In the instant case, it has been around five years have elapsed since the accused was sent to jail and his rights and liberties are getting stifled as he is being kept incarcerated without any progress in the trial. An accused cannot be kept behind bars as an under trial for an indefinite period. 19. 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 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. 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 trial prisoner, who is waiting for the trial to complete and reach a conclusion about his guilt for the alleged crime, is not only deprived of his right to a speedy trial but his other fundamental rights like right to liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of practising a profession or carrying on any occupation, business or trade and freedom to dignity are also hampered.” 20. In view of the enunciation made regarding provisions for consideration of bail and looking to the fact that the petitioner is behind the bar since last more than five years and noticing that culmination of trial in a near future is not a seeming fate and considering the overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that nature and gravity of offence alone are not required to be considered at the time of granting bail but at the same time, it has to be ensured that the trial has to be concluded within a reasonable period if the accused in languishing in jail therefore, without going into the niceties of the matter it is felt that the right of the accused to have a speedy trial should be protected. Looking to the high probability that the trial may still take a long time to conclude this Court deems it fit to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner. 21. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Mangna Ram S/o Pokar Ram, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.60/2020, registered at Police Station Bhojasar, District – Jodhpur (Rural) (now District - Phalodi), shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.