Allowed

Raju @ Rajmal Gurjar Son of Madhuram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 Nov 2025CRLMB/9611/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third bail applications by two accused in custody since mid-2022 for murder offences; trial remained unconcluded despite an earlier direction to finish by October 2025. Citing prolonged incarceration and violation of the Article 21 right to speedy trial, the court enlarged both accused on bail.

What did the court decide?

Both petitioners released on bail on personal bond of Rs.3,00,000 each with two sureties of Rs.1,50,000 each; monthly presence at local police station required.

Raju @ Rajmal Gurjar Son of Madhuram Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:47543]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3^rd Bail Application No. 9611/2025

¶4

Raju @ Rajmal Gurjar S/o Madhuram, Aged About 33 Years, Resident of Bahadurpura, At Present Indra Colony, Ward No. 04, Near Paani Ki Tanki, Vijay Nagar, District Ajmer, (Raj.) (Presently Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3^rd Bail Application No. 14471/2025 Bheru Lal Gurjar S/o Hagama, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Jaisinghpura, Vijay Nagar, (At Present In Central Jail, Ajmer)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navdeep Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. ND Dhakar, PP with Mr. MS Shekhawat, PP

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶17

Order

¶18

24/11/2025

¶19

These bail applications have been filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners who are in custody since 13.06.2022, in connection with FIR No.246/2022 Police Station Vijay Nagar, Ajmer for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police has filed chargesheet in this matter before the court concerned.

[2025:RJ-JP:47543]

[CRLMB-9611/2025]

(2 of 5)

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the second bail applications filed by the petitioners were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.04.2025 by this Court with the specific direction to the trial court to conduct the trial in this matter on day-to-day basis and conclude the same on or before 31.10.2025. Counsel submits that despite specific direction, the trial is still pending for conclusion. Thus, these bail applications have been preferred on behalf of the petitioners.

¶24

It is contended by learned counsel for the accused petitioners that the accused petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that nothing has come on record which shows involvement of the accused petitioners in the alleged crime. It is also contended that petitioners are in custody since 13.06.2022 and as such, till date, they have suffered incarceration of nearly three years and five months. He contends that trial is going at a snail’s pace as till date only 27 witnesses have been examined out of 31 cited witnesses. Conclusion of trial will take considerable time. He also contends that this delay occurring in conclusion of trial is seriously violating the fundamental right of the speedy trial of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The period of custody is always relevant consideration for grant of bail. When a trial get prolonged, it is not open for the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused on the ground that the charges are very serious.

¶25

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer of bail. It is submitted that looking to gravity of offence and evidence so far come on record, the petitioners do not

[2025:RJ-JP:47543]

[CRLMB-9611/2025]

(3 of 5)

deserve indulgence of bail. He, thus, crave dismissal of these bail applications.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶31

Admittedly, the petitioners are in custody since 22.06.2022 and thus, they have served incarceration of nearly three years and five months. Further, while dismissing the second bail applications as withdrawn, this Court issued specific direction to the trial court to conclude the trial on or before 31.10.2025, but yet the trial has not been concluded and till date only 27 witnesses, out of 31 cited witnesses, have been examined and thus, trial will take long time in its conclusion. The delay occurring in conclusion of trial is seriously violating the fundamental right of the speedy trial of the petitioners as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

The personal liberty is a priceless treasure for a human being. It is basically a natural right. No one would like to lose his liberty. People from centuries have fought for liberty, for absence of liberty causes sense of emptiness. The sanctity of liberty is the fulcrum of any civilized society.

¶33

The expression 'Personal Liberty' in Article 21 of the Constitution is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a person and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19 of the Constitution. 'Personal Liberty' under Article 21 of the Constitution primarily means freedom from physical restraint of person by incarceration or otherwise. The concept of "right to life

[2025:RJ-JP:47543]

[CRLMB-9611/2025]

(4 of 5)

and personal liberty" guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the "right to live with dignity" and it does not mean mere animal like existence of life. After the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision rendered in the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, Article 21 of the Constitution now protects the right of life and personal liberty of citizen not only from the executive action but from the legislative action also. A person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty if two conditions are complied with, first, there must be a law and secondly, there must be a procedure prescribed by that law provided that the procedure is just, fair and reasonable.

¶38

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in catena of the judgments that prolonged incarceration without trial is violative of rights of an accused and the court should step in to protect him and no provision can take away the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights. Prolonged incarceration is a valid ground for granting bail in the Indian judiciary system, particularly when coupled with the anticipated length of the trial. The right to liberty under Article 21 is a critical consideration, and courts should incline to grant bail to prevent undue hardship particularly when prosecution is not showing promptness in producing witnesses. However, the nature of the offence, potential risks associated with releasing the accused, and the overall context of the case must be carefully evaluated.

¶39

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case especially the facts that the petitioners are in custody since 13.06.2022; trial will take time in its conclusion as 4 witnesses are yet to be examined during the course of trial, but without

[2025:RJ-JP:47543]

[CRLMB-9611/2025]

(5 of 5)

commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 11. Consequently, both the third bail applications are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners (1) Raju @ Rajmal Gurjar S/o Madhuram & (2) Bheru Lal Gurjar S/o Hagama arrested in connection with FIR No.246/2022 registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Ajmer shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.3,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.1,50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶44

It is made clear that the accused petitioners shall not involve in any similar offence during currency of bail and they shall mark their presence in the concerned local police station in the first and third week of every month till trial is concluded.

¶45

The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail and would not have any impact on trial of the case in any manner.

¶46

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶47

Manoj Solanki/6 & 7

Raju @ Rajmal Gurjar Son of Madhuram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Rajmal Gurjar Son of Madhuram 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

M/S Rajs Indane Gas Service Vs E P F Appellate Tribunal Ors.

Tilak Public School Samiti Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Singh S/O Shri Vijay Bahadur Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Meena S/O Balveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeetraj Meena S/O Ramkhiladi, C/O Moti Lal, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rinku Son of Shri Satish Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan