Allowed

Rakesh Alias Rodu S/O Shri Hanuman Sahai Sharma, v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2024CRLMB/13525/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the petitioner in a murder case where he had been in judicial custody for over three years. Lacking direct evidence and with only a fraction of prosecution witnesses examined, the court held that indefinite pre-conviction detention infringes fundamental rights and is not warranted by law.

What did the court decide?

Accused enlarged on bail by furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Rakesh Alias Rodu S/O Shri Hanuman Sahai… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:5089]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 13525/2023

¶4

Rakesh Alias Rodu S/o Shri Hanuman Sahai Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Keshyawala, Police Station Muhana, Jaipur. (Accused/petitioner Is Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Shri Rajendra Choudhary S/o Shri Ram Karan Choudhary, R/o Village Keshyawala, P.s. Muhana, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Advocate assisted byMr. Sudhesh Saini
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.S. Mehla, PP
	Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Sr. Advocate-cum-
	AAG

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

19/01/2024

¶13

The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant second bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The first bail application of the petitioner being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10420/2021 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 26.08.2022 with liberty to renew the prayer after change in circumstances.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the challan papers and have gone through the progress of the trial made till date.

[2024:RJ-JP:5089]

[CRLMB-13525/2023]

(2 of 3)

A perusal of the record revealing that the petitioner is in custody in this case since 06.01.2020. Present one is a murder case of a young boy Arpit Choudhary, however, no direct evidence with regard to commission of crime available on record. The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon grave suspicion and recovery of knife, which was recovered from the roof of a residential house. It is observed that all the material collected in this case as an evidence against the accused has been collected post his arrest. No cogent evidence has been placed on record on the basis of which the petitioner was arrested and as a matter of fact, the purported evidence has been collected after effecting his arrest. At this stage of trial, this Court would abstain from giving any final opinion with regard to the quality of evidence, yet upon consideration of the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars for more than three years and out of 32 witnesses only six witnesses have been examined and culmination of the trial is not a seeming fate, this Court would tend towards the right of the liberty guaranteed to every individual.

¶19

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that a reasonable time can only be granted to the prosecution to prove its case by keeping the accused behind the bars and at the same time an indefinite period cannot be granted so as to ascertain whether the accused is guilty or not. I am of this view that pre-conviction detention for a period of more than three years is not warranted by the law since the same infringes fundamental right of the accused guaranteed under the Constitution of India. There is high probability that the trial

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:5089]

[CRLMB-13525/2023]

may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

¶24

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.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant 2^nd bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Rakesh @ Rodu S/o Hanuman Sahai Sharma arrested in connection with FIR No.12/2020 registered at the Police Station Muhana, District Jaipur (South) shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶26

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶27

Mamta/

Rakesh Alias Rodu S/O Shri Hanuman Sahai Sharma, v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Alias Rodu S/O Shri Hanuman Sahai Sharma, v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badal Kumar Alias Madaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Chagnaram @ Kalu Vs State of Rajasthan

Gautam Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarfaraz Mohammad S/O Late Shri Ishaq Mohammad Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sharwan Kumar S/O Shri Hanumanram Vs State of Rajasthan

Hasandeen S/O Late Chav Khan Vs State of Rajasthan