Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 124 (RAJ)

Rakesh S/o Shri Mohan Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2026-02-03

MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

body2026
ORDER : 1. The instant 2 nd application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in the present matter. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: 2. The 1 st bail application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e. S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7370/2025 was dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2025 passed by this Court with the liberty to the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording the statement of constable-Shreechand. After rejection of first bail application, the statement of constable-Shreechand has been recorded as P.W. 01. Hence, this second application for bail has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the contents of FIR, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of identification by constable-Shreechand, who was a member of the seizing team, the relevant portion FIR is reproduced as under: 4. It is further submitted that the statement of constable-Shreechand has been recorded as PW-1. It is submitted that in his examination-in-chief, PW-1 stated that the petitioner was identified by him, however, during cross-examination, he categorically denied the said identification, which reads as under: 5. Learned counsel further submits that a bare perusal of the aforesaid statement clearly establishes that during cross- examination constable-Shreechand has denied the identification of the petitioner. 6. It is also submitted that as per the statement of the Patwari recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the premises from where alleged contraband was recovered belongs to the father of the petitioner Mohan Ram. It is contended that as per the revenue record, which forms part of the charge-sheet, there are as many as 48 Khatedars who are co-sharers of the said land. Therefore, the petitioner is neither the exclusive nor the individual owner of the said premises and his implication is false and fabricated. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.02.2024 (approximately two years), charge-sheet has already been filed; only one prosecution witness out of a total of 23 prosecution witnesses has been examined till date; the trial of the case is likely to take a considerable time to conclude. Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. Therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orissa , Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 4169/2023 and Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 915 of 2023. Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble 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.” 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Avtar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13483/2024 decided on 22.05.2025, wherein, while allowing the bail application, it was observed as under: “7. In Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Odisha passed in Special leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4169/2023, Hon’ble the Apex Court has again passed an order dated 13th July, 2023 dealing this issue and has held that the provisional liberty(bail) overrides the prescribed impediment in the statute under Section 37 of the NDPS Act as liberty directly hits one of the most precious fundamental rights envisaged in the Constitution, that is, the right to life and personal liberty contained in Article 21. 8. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner is behind the bars for around more than two years thus, looking to the fact that there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude and given the flagrant non-compliance with these mandatory provisions, this Court finds that the continued detention of the petitioner is not justified thus it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner. 9. It is nigh well settled law that at a pre-conviction stage; bail is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. Otherwise, it is the rule of Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved. 10. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner has one previous criminal antecedent of a similar nature, therefore, does not deserve the indulgence of bail. However, he is not in a position to dispute the fact that in the cross-examination of PW-1, constable Shreechand has not identified the petitioner. 11. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier case of similar nature, the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.04.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4515/2024. 12. Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case as well as perused the material available on record; considering the statement of P.W. 01 Shreechand as also the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 10.02.2024 (approximately two years); charge-sheet has already been filed; out of total 23 prosecution witnesses, only 01 has been examined so far; the trial will take sufficiently long time to conclude, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 13. Consequently, the 2 nd bail application under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) is allowed. 13. Consequently, the 2 nd bail application under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused- petitioner as named in the cause title, arrested in connection with the above mentioned FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- 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.