Allowed

Rameshwar S/O Shri Nathuram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Nov 2025CRLMB/3177/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a second bail application on the grounds of prolonged incarceration (over 30 months) and unlikely speedy trial conclusion, ordering the petitioner's enlargement on bail subject to personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail under Section 483 BNSS by furnishing personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 2,50,000 each.

Rameshwar S/O Shri Nathuram Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:46562]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 3177/2025 Rameshwar S/o Shri Nathuram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Dholpuriya Police Station Arai, District Ajmer. (At Present Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶10

Order

¶11

18/11/2025

¶12

The instant second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 85/2023 registered at Police Station Arai, District Ajmer for offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 504, 302 of IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 34, 341, 323, 504 and 302 of IPC and 3/25 & 5/27 of the Arms Act has been filed by the investigating agency in the court concerned.

¶13

The petitioner had earlier filed his first bail application, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 02.04.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after recording testimony of the

[2025:RJ-JP:46562]

[CRLMB-3177/2025]

(2 of 6)

eyewitnesses i.e. (1) Mukhram Choyal S/o Ramdayal, (2) Dharmpal S/o Prithwipal, (3) Ganesh Jat S/o Chotu Ram, (4) Khusiram S/o Ramdayal, (5) Meghraj S/o Vishram, (6) Vikas Jyani S/o Ranglal, (7) Vikas Bhadu S/o Gyanchand, (8) Jai Singh S/o Girraj Singh, (9) Omprakash S/o Vishnuprakash, (10) Surendra Ghasal S/o Mukhram, (11) Nikhil Yadav S/o Chaturbhuj and (12) Mahendra Chaudhary S/o Shubhkaran. Counsel submits that now 9 material witnesses have been examined out of aforesaid 12 witnesses and presence of other 3 witnesses could not be secured despite issuance of bailable warrant thus, this second bail application has been preferred.

¶18

According to the prosecution story, on 14.05.2023, the FIR was registered on the basis of written report submitted by complainant Arjun Singh stating therein that his brother, Karan Singh, had gone with some of his friends to have food at the Chamunda Hotel located in Arai town. There, the accused applicant arrived with his associates, and they started beating them. The accused petitioner then fired a pistol, and the bullet hit his brother Karan in the chest, causing his death on the spot. On the basis of these facts, the FIR was registered for the offences punishable under section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 504, 302 of IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. During the course of investigation, arrest of the petitioner was made on the same day at 09.45 PM. Based on his information under section 27 of the Evidence Act, country-made pistol was recovered on next day. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against petitioner and three others for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 341, 323, 504 and 302 of IPC and 3/25 & 5/27 of the Arms Act.

[2025:RJ-JP:46562]

[CRLMB-3177/2025]

(3 of 6)

The present second bail application has now been preferred primarily on the ground of prolonged incarceration, as the petitioner has remained in custody since 14.05.2023, thereby having undergone imprisonment about 2 and half years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and all the evidence against him has been fabricated. Counsel further submits that cross-cases have been registered between the parties and charge sheet has been filed against the 11 person for the offences punishable under section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 504, 324, 307 of IPC and 3/25 & 5/27 of the Arms Act. Counsel further submits that on the request of the prosecution, charge has been amended and therefore witnesses have been summoned again. Counsel submits that till date, only 9 witnesses have been examined out of 33 prosecution witnesses and despite issuance of bailable warrant, other witnesses are not truing up as they are accused in cross-case and absconding. Counsel submits that 6 witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. Counsel submits that there are bleak chances of culmination of trial in near future and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Counsel further submits that petitioner has clean antecedents.

¶23

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposes the bail application and sought dismissal of the bail application. He submits that there is specific allegation of causing firearm injury against the petitioner and he is main accused of this case. He further submits that after rejection of

[2025:RJ-JP:46562]

[CRLMB-3177/2025]

(4 of 6)

first bail application, there is no substantial change in circumstances to entertain this second bail application.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 7. Upon careful perusal of the case record, it is observed that there is allegation of causing firearm injury against the petitioner and with regard to incident, cross-cases have been registered between the parties. It is also evident that both parties have been charge-sheeted. Till 17.10.2025, out of 33 listed witnesses, only 9 have been examined. The petitioner possesses no criminal antecedents apart from the present case. This Court deems it inappropriate, at the stage of hearing a bail application, to comment upon the quality or credibility of the evidence, since such observations may unduly influence the proceedings. It stands undisputed that the petitioner has remained in custody continuously since 14.05.2023. From the sequence of events, there appears to be no indication that the petitioner is responsible for the delays in the trial. The slow progress of the proceedings suggests that the conclusion of the trial is unlikely in the near future.

¶29

This Court further observes that while the nature and gravity of the offence are relevant considerations, they are not the sole determinants in deciding a bail application. The timely and expeditious conclusion of the trial within a reasonable period is a significant factor to be weighed in the balance. It is a wellestablished principle of criminal jurisprudence that the presumption of innocence persists until an accused is found guilty by a competent court. The primary object of pre-trial detention is

[2025:RJ-JP:46562]

[CRLMB-3177/2025]

(5 of 6)

to secure the accused’s presence during the trial and to ensure the execution of the sentence, if convicted, rather than to serve as a form of punitive or preventive confinement. An accused cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite duration, for every individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is constitutionally impermissible to subject an under-trial prisoner to prolonged detention merely on account of judicial delays. Such prolonged incarceration violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including the rights to personal liberty, freedom of movement, livelihood, and human dignity. The right to a speedy trial is, therefore, an integral and inseparable aspect of the right to life and personal liberty.

¶34

This Court takes note of the coordinate Bench’s observation made in Bail Application No. 12898/2024, Ashish Shekhawat @ Akshay Singh vs. State , wherein it was held that if the accused is not responsible for delay in trial, they cannot be kept in confinement for an indefinite period as an under-trial prisoner.

¶35

Considering the principles governing the grant of bail, the period of custody of about 30 months, the petitioner’s clean antecedents, and the apparent improbability of early conclusion of the trial, this Court finds it appropriate to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner. The fundamental right of the accused to a speedy trial must be protected, and the prolonged detention in this case would amount to a denial of that right.

¶36

Accordingly, the instant second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Rameshwar S/o Shri Nathuram shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum

[2025:RJ-JP:46562]

[CRLMB-3177/2025]

(6 of 6)

of Rs.5,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.2,50,000/- 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.

¶41

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶42

Manoj Solanki/9

Rameshwar S/O Shri Nathuram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar S/O Shri Nathuram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal @ Vishu S/O Mukesh Kewat, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Man Singh S/O Kalyan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhagwati Kumawat W/O Parasram Kumawat Vs the State of Rajasthan

Maheshchand Gupta S/O Prabhudayal Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohmmad Khokhan S/O Shri Mohammad Ali Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Kumar Dadarwal S/O. Shri Nathu Lal Jat Vs the State of Rajasthan