Vinod vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18746) on 15 April, 2025

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vinod vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18746) on 15 April, 2025

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant 3rd bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No.                           Particulars of the Case
     1.     FIR Number                                27/2021
     2.     Concerned Police Station                  Mandalgarh
     3.     District                                  Bhilwara
     4.     Offences alleged in the FIR               Sections 304, 328 of the
                                                      IPC & Sections 16 and
                                                      54B of the Raj. Excise Act
     5.     Offences added, if any                    Sections 302 & 326 of the
                                                      IPC & Section16/54 of the
                                                      Raj. Excise Act.
     6.     Date of passing of impugned 06.03.2025
            order

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Bhom Singh, while undergoing treatment at the Male Medical Ward, (Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 09:19:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:18746] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-4111/2025] submitted a statement on 29.01.2021 to the effect that he is engaged in agricultural work and occasionally consumes alcohol. On 28.01.2021 at around 6:00 PM, he along with Ladusingh and Hazari--all residents of his village--went to the house of Gulla S/o Ramchandra. Gulla was illicitly manufacturing country-made liquor at his residence. The three of them purchased half a bottle each for Rs.30/- and took the liquor with them. The complainant returned to his house, where he consumed two pegs of the liquor. Subsequently, he began to feel dizzy and started vomiting. It was further stated that other villagers including Ladusingh, Sardar Bhat, and Dalel Singh Rajput also purchased liquor from Gulla Kanjar. As his condition deteriorated, he was taken to Mahua and later admitted to M.G. Hospital, Bhilwara. He stated that his condition had stabilized. He further reported that Dalel Singh Rajput, Hazarilal Bairwa, and Sardar Bhat, who also purchased and consumed liquor from Gulla Kanjar's house, died as a result. Sattudevi Kanjar also passed away. Ladusingh was hospitalized. Thus, the consumption of the illicit country-made liquor led to the deaths of four individuals. On the basis of the said report, Police Station Mandalgarh registered First Information Report No.27/2021 under Sections 302, 304, 326, 328 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. Upon investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the competent court. Hence, the instant bail application.

4. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the (Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 09:19:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:18746] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-4111/2025] case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. He further submits that the accused was taken into custody on 20.02.2021 and since then he is behind the bars. Now, after his arrest, more than four years have elapsed but the trial is not going to be culminated and still it seems that a further long time shall be taken in conclusion of the same, thus, he may be enlarged on bail.

5. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

6. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. The earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2024 passed in SBCRLMB No.11582/2024 and trial Court was directed to expedite the trial. As per which the record, out of total 82 witnesses only 22 could have been examined.

8. As per the law, while keeping an accused detained, the opportunity to the prosecutor to lead evidence can only be given for a reasonable period. The wider connotation of the phrase 'reasonable period' be understood to be one year because the case is classified as a sessions case which would mean that the like cases should commence and conclude within a session, that is, one year. Even if an elastic interpretation of the expression 'reasonable period' is taken on the pretext of certain unavoidable (Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 09:19:40 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:18746] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-4111/2025] circumstances, then it can only be doubled and even in that situation, trial has to be completed within two years while keeping an accused in custody. Suffice it would to say that for the purpose of determination as to whether the accused is guilty or not, only a reasonable period can be awarded to the prosecutor if the accused is behind the bars. The cases which are classified as session case are purposefully directed to be heard by senior officer of District Judge Cadre looking to his experience and rank/grade/post. In criminal jurisprudence prevalent in India, there is a presumption of innocence working in favour of the accused until he is proven guilty in the trial. The trial is conducted for the purpose of affording an opportunity to the prosecutor to prove the charges and only for the purpose of proving guilt or adducing evidence on record, an unreasonable period of time cannot be granted as the same infringes the fundamental rights of an accused which are otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution of India. While entertaining a bail plea the Court of law is required to take into account the above-mentioned aspect of the matter as well beside the gravity of offence and quantum of sentence.

9. It is well-nigh settled law that at pre-conviction stage, bail is a rule and denial of the same should be an exception. The purpose for keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction and to ensure that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him otherwise, as stated above, it is the rule of crimnal jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is proved. In the instant case, it has been around three years have elapsed since (Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 09:19:40 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:18746] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-4111/2025] the accused was sent to jail and his rights and liberties are getting stifled as he is being kept incarcerated without any progress in the trial. An accused cannot be kept behind bars as an undertrial for an indefinite period.

10. This Court has made an elaborate discussion with regard to bail of an under trial accused on the ground of delay in culmination of the trial. This Court feels that if the accused is under detention, it is obligatory for the prosecution to complete the trial within a reasonable period. Dealing with the identical issue where the trial had been protracted for unreasonable period, an elaborate discussion has been made by this Court while deciding the S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5916/2023 in the matter of Lichhman Ram @ Laxman Ram Vs. State decided on 08.02.2024. The relevant part of which would be apt to reproduce here which reads as under:-

7. This Court feels that the nature and gravity of offence and availability of material in support thereof are not the only factors to be taken into account while considering a bail application. The fact that trial is to be concluded within a reasonable period of time is imperative while considering grant of bail to an accused. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is presumption of innocence at the pre-conviction stage and the objective for keeping a person in jail is to ensure his presence to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. This detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive in nature. An accused is considered to be innocent until he or she or they are proven guilty in the court of law.

(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 09:19:40 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:18746] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-4111/2025]

8. As per the fundamental rights granted to every citizen/person by the Constitution of India, the accused cannot be expected to languish in custody for an indefinite period if the trial is taking unreasonably long time to reach the stage of conclusion. An under trial prisoner, who is waiting for the trial to complete and reach a conclusion about his guilt for the alleged crime, is not only deprived of his right to a speedy trial but his other fundamental rights like right to liberty, freedom of movement, freedom of practising a profession or carrying on any occupation, business or trade and freedom to dignity are also hampered.

9. Life without liberty is like a body without soul. Freedom is the open window through which pours the sunlight of the human spirit and human dignity. Personal liberty of the accused is sacrosanct and quintessential to the very spirit and structure of a civilisation. Jeremy Bentham, the great English jurist, postulated that the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the end of law. The concept of civil liberty is embedded in individualism. This simply means that the purpose of the state is to help every individual in reaching their highest development and evolving into the best personality, thereby reaching a point where law and state are not required by the society. Thus, when personal liberty of an individual is threatened, his development is in peril which is a matter of great concern. Sir Wiiliam Blackstone has deftly observed on page 134 of the first volume of his book, 'Commentaries on the Laws of England' that, "Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation or moving one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law".



                        (Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 09:19:40 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:18746]                      (7 of 8)                     [CRLMB-4111/2025]


                     Justice    cannot       be     presumed         to    have   been

administered merely on passing of a judgment of conviction and order of sentence or a judgment of acquittal; rather administration of justice shall be deemed to have been completed when the trial is concluded within a reasonable period of time and the accused as well as the complainant/victim are not made to wait for years on end to know the result of the trial.

10. One of the founding fathers and the Third President of them United States of America, Thomas Jefferson, has rightly said that, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." Though the victim/complainant party has the right to seek justice against an accused person but that does not mean that the right of the accused to a fair trial can get hampered. A fair trial is one which is concluded within a reasonable period of time.

11. It is not just a fundamental right but also a human right of every accused as incarceration for an indefinite period pending trial is in contravention of the universal rights that are imperative for us all sans any kind of discrimination. Justice P.N. Bhagwati has embodied the spirit of the afore-mentioned observation in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 in the following words:

"The expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19."

12. No one is unaware of the fact that justice delayed is justice denied. On one hand, if a victim (Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 09:19:40 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:18746] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-4111/2025] has to wait for years to see the perpetrator get his due and on the other hand, if the accused is innocent and it is so decided that he was not guilty for the crime as alleged by the prosecution, then there is no justifiable answer that can put out the fire that has been burning in the minds of the parties since the very inception of the criminal proceedings.

11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner is behind the bars for more than four years thus, looking to the fact that there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner.

12. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title 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.

(FARJAND ALI),J 39-Mamta/-

(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 09:19:40 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur