Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surender @ Sheru vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:46521) on 29 October, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:46521]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 2043/2025
Surender @ Sheru S/o Shri Mangilal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Ganeshpura , P.s. Sadar Chittorgarh , Dist Chittorgarh (Raj) (At
Present Lodged At Sub Jail , Nimbahera)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Adv. assisted
by Ms. Priyanka Borana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 29/10/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-applicant. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 263/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Kotwali 3. District Nimbahera 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 302, 364, 201 of IPC 5. Offences added, if any --
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-applicant 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 case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the (Uploaded on 30/10/2025 at 05:07:29 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2025 at 06:27:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46521] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2043/2025] accused-applicant and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.
5. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2023 as not pressed by learned counsel for the applicant.
6. Now more than two and half years have elapsed, the accused is languished in jail and waiting for the legitimate conclusion of the trial. A report of the trial Court has been summoned to know the present status of the trial and in response it is apprised to this Court that total twenty six witnesses have been examined till now out of total projected thirty six witnesses. As such all material witness have been examined now there remains only formal witnesses who are directly not projected by the prosecution to insinuate the applicant or to bring on record any thread directly connecting with the applicant to the death of the deceased. The eye witness account of the incident is not available on record and the entire case of the prosecution majorly dependent upon some circumstances however it is argued that none of the bit of the circumstance is either definite in tendency or conclusive in nature. Shri Dhirendra Singh learned Senior Advocate (Uploaded on 30/10/2025 at 05:07:29 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2025 at 06:27:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46521] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2043/2025] vehemently and fervently urges that if all these circumstances as put forth against the applicant are taken together without controverting the same still the same would not indicate unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. After going through the record of the case and the statement recorded so far it is observed that the star witness who was supposed to depose about seeing the applicant in the company of the deceased has not supported the story set out in the charge-sheet by the police rather turned hostile. The witnesses of the recovery of the weapon do not depose about something concrete which could establish a good nexus between the recovered article and the accused. The extra judicial confession allegedly made before ASI Dhuraram does not bear importance and value since there is nothing on record to infer whether the confession was made voluntarily or the same was truthful rather it appeared to have narrated in a very bald and vague manner. The information supplied to this ASI has been narrated during trial. Ordinarily a confession must be a judicial confession and be recorded by a judicial magistrate. A confession made on threat or promise or inducement is not admissible. A confession made to a police officer while in police custody is also not admissible in evidence. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajaram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 passed by honble the Supreme Court, the law with regard to evidentiary value of extra judicial confession has very well been propounded. Taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, (Uploaded on 30/10/2025 at 05:07:29 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2025 at 06:27:28 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:46521] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2043/2025] the quality of the evidence, the period the applicant has spent in custody so far, and considering that a reasonable time will still be required for the culmination of the trial, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-applicant 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 34-Samvedana/-
(Uploaded on 30/10/2025 at 05:07:29 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2025 at 06:27:28 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)