Dismissed¶21

Satyendra S/O Shri Jadveer v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 May 2026CRLMB/5772/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur, S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 5772/2026, decided 13/05/2026 by Justice Ganesh Ram Meena; accused Satyendra; FIR 397/2023, P.S. Kumher, Sections 143/302/120-B IPC; bail dismissed despite custody since 10.07.2023 and Article 21 speedy-trial plea because 20 of 32 witnesses examined; directions to trial Court to expedite trial and to SP Bharatpur regarding police witnesses; fresh bail application allowed if witnesses absent; keywords: bail after long custody, delayed trial, prosecution witnesses, speedy trial.

What did the court decide?

No release ordered; however, conditional liberty reserved - the petitioner may file a fresh bail application if the prosecution witnesses do not appear for examination even after this order. ¶21

Satyendra S/O Shri Jadveer Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No release ordered; however, conditional liberty reserved - the petitioner may file a fresh bail application if the prosecution witnesses do not appear for examination even after this order.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-petitioner, in custody since 10.07.2023 with 20 of 32 prosecution witnesses yet examined and trial stalled by prosecution default, deserves release on bail on the ground of the right to speedy trial under Article 21.

¶14

Court's answer

Taking into account the overall facts, the allegations against the accused-petitioner, and the fact that 20 of the total 32 material witnesses have already been examined, the Court is not inclined at this stage to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The third bail application is dismissed; the trial Court is expected to conclude the trial as early as possible.

¶21

Key takeaways

Since the remaining prosecution witnesses are almost all government servants, the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur is directed to ensure that the prosecution witnesses who are Police Personnel remain present before the trial Court as and when summoned.ratio¶22
Police Personnel who are prosecution witnesses and who fail to appear before the trial Court on the summoned day without any cogent ground shall have their non-appearance dealt with strictly.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused - long incarceration with delayed trial not sufficient at this stage where bulk of prosecution evidence already recorded. Third bail application under FIR No.397/2023 (Sections 143, 302, 120-B IPC, P.S. Kumher, Bharatpur) dismissed: accused in custody since 10.07.2023, but 20 of the 32 prosecution witnesses stand examined before the trial Court, so the Court declined to enlarge him on bail despite invocation of the Article 21 right to speedy trial. Trial Court directed to conclude the trial expeditiously; Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur directed to ensure attendance of Police Personnel witnesses, whose non-appearance without cogent ground is to be dealt with strictly; liberty expressly reserved to the petitioner to move a fresh bail application if prosecution witnesses still fail to appear after this order.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:20166]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. 3^rd Bail Application No. 5772/2026

¶4

Satyendra S/o Shri Jadveer, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gangarsauli, Police Station Kumher District Deeg, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Bharatpur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

13/05/2026

¶13

This third bail application has been filed by the accusedpetitioner in connection with FIR No.397/2023 registered at Police Station Kumher, Bharatpur for offence punishable under Sections 143, 302, 120-B of IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that accused-petitioner is in custody since 10.07.2023 and out of total 32 witnesses, only 20 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the prosecution witnesses are not turning up of their evidence before the trial court and there is no effective progress in the trial because of default on the part of the prosecution. The accused-petitioner deserves to be released on bail, as accusedpetitioner cannot be continued in custody for an indefinite period because for no fault on his part. He also pleaded the right to

[2026:RJ-JP:20166]

[CRLMB-5772/2026]

(2 of 3)

speedy trial is provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶19

3 . Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submits that material prosecution witnesses have been examined. He further states that the remaining prosecution witnesses who are the Government Officials including the Police Personnel would appear before the trial court for their examination as and when summoned.

¶20

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and so also the allegations against the accusedpetitioner and more particularly the fact that out of total 32 material witnesses, 20 have already been examined before the trial Court, this Court, at this stage, is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, this third bail application is dismissed. However, the trial Court is expected to conclude the trial as early as possible.

¶22

Since the remaining prosecution witnesses are almost the Government servant, the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur is directed to ensure the prosecution witnesses who are the Police Personnel, to remain present before the trial Court as and when summoned.

¶23

In case the Police Personnel, who are prosecution witnesses do not appear before the trial Court on the day for which they are summoned without any cogent ground, their non-appearance shall be dealt with strictly.

¶24

Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the

[CRLMB-5772/2026]

[2026:RJ-JP:20166]

(3 of 3)

Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur.

¶29

However, It is made clear that in case the prosecution witnesses, even after this order, do not appear before the trial Court for examination the petitioner would be at liberty to file the fresh bail application.

¶30

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶31

PRATEEK/6

Satyendra S/O Shri Jadveer v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyendra S/O Shri Jadveer v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lal Bhadur Yadav and Ors. Vs Rahul Yadav

Lalchand S/O Chauthmal Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep S/O Sitaram Jangid Vs the State of Rajasthan

Himmat Singh Maan S/O Late Nandroop Singh Maan Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S S.N.G. Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Vinod Bavriya Son of Shri Roopsingh, Vs State of Rajasthan