Allowed

Heera Ram S/O Shri Manjanaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 May 2025CRLMB/4237/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a third bail application filed by an accused in a cheating and conspiracy case, citing prolonged custody since October 2023 and lack of substantial progress in the trial despite the charge-sheet being submitted.

What did the court decide?

Acc released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, subject to conditions.

Heera Ram S/O Shri Manjanaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:18745]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IIIrd Bail Application No. 4237/2025

¶4

Heera Ram S/o Shri Manjanaram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Narsana Tehsil And Police Station Bagoda, District Jalore, At Present Resident Of Central Jail, Ajmer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

Mohan Lal Yadav S/o Kalyan Sahai Yadav, R/o Vijay Govindpura, Jobner, District Jaipur Rural Presently Section Officer, Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. assisted by
	Mr. DhananjaySharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Tapesh Agarwal,PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶12

Order

¶13

05/05/2025

¶14

This third bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.381/2023 registered at Police Station Civil Line, District Ajmer for offence(s) under Sections 419, 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 3/10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Use of Unfair Means) Act.

¶15

Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 06.10.2023 and the allegation against the petitioner is that he was mediator between the aspirant and main accused. There are no criminal antecedent of petitioner and despite of submissions of charge-sheet against the petitioner, there is no progress in the criminal trial. The case of

[2025:RJ-JP:18745]

[CRLMB-4237/2025]

(2 of 3)

petitioner is on better footings than co-accused Arjun Kumar Vishnoi, who has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2025.

¶20

It has been argued that the petitioner has a legal right for expeditious trial and due non-conclusion of criminal trial against the petitioner since long, the fundamental right of life and liberty of the petitioner is being violated. A reference of the recent order dated 09.09.2024, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No.8523/2024 titled as Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab , releasing the accused on bail due to non-conclusion of trial despite issuing directions that same is to be concluded within a period of five months, has been given. Therefore, in such circumstances, petitioner be released on bail.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, however, does not dispute that there is no substantial progress in trial after recording the statement of Investigation Officer on 04.12.2024 and not able to distinguish the case of petitioner than co-accused Arjun Kumar Vishnoi.

¶22

Having considered the nature of allegation against the petitioner and period of his custody since 06.10.2023 and the fact that despite submission of charge-sheet, there is no substantial progress in the trial and on same parameters, co-accused Arjun Kumar Vishnoi has been released on bail, but without commenting on merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release petitioner on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the third bail application is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Heera Ram S/o Shri

[CRLMB-4237/2025]

[2025:RJ-JP:18745]

(3 of 3)

Manjanaram shall be released 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.

¶28

However, in addition to the usual terms and conditions, it is

¶29

hereby directed that:

¶30

(i) Accused-petitioner shall not induce or influence or temper with any prosecution evidence/witness.

¶31

(ii) Accused-petitioner shall not repeat the similar nature of offence.

¶32

(iii) Accused-petitioner shall not leave District Ajmer without leave of the trial Court.

¶33

(iv) In case, accused-petitioner is found involved in similar offence, during bail granted by this Court or breach of conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail, granted by this Court.

¶34

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶35

NITIN /1

Heera Ram S/O Shri Manjanaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heera Ram S/O Shri Manjanaram 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

Dipti Purohit D/O Shri Harish Purohit Vs State of Rajasthan

Manju Kumari Daughter of Shri Ramdevaram Wife of Shri Banwari Lal Dhaka Vs State of Rajasthan

Devendra Kumar Meena S/O Late Mangi Lal Meena Vs Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank

Hema Meena D/O Hari Ram Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mewa Ram Meena S/O Khyali Ram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Manju Kumari W/O Vijendra Kumar Vs State of Raj.