Naresh Kumar Soni vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5170) on 29 January, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Naresh Kumar Soni vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5170) on 29 January, 2026

1. The petitioner, an undertrial prisoner presently confined in Central Jail, Jodhpur, having been arrested on 19.09.2019 in connection with Complaint No. 32/2019 dated 23.08.2019 registered at Police Station SOG, Jaipur, approaches this Court invoking its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, seeking interim bail on compelling humanitarian grounds. Since the date of arrest, the petitioner has remained in continuous judicial custody, while facing prosecution in a multitude of criminal cases spread across diverse jurisdictions, which have yet to proceed to trial.

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:22:58 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:35:11 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5170] (2 of 4) [CRLW-3210/2025]

2. The gravamen of the petitioner's submission is predicated upon the serious and documented medical condition of his wife, who suffers from an intra-mural uterine fibroid, as evidenced by authenticated medical records from the Government Medical College & Hospital, Barmer, corroborated by radiological investigations. The medical narrative reflects fluctuating haematological parameters, the requirement of continuous medical supervision, and the imperative of timely surgical intervention. It is asserted that the petitioner's presence is indispensable to ensure appropriate medical care, emotional sustenance, and informed decision-making, particularly in view of the absence of any other adult male in the family and the dependency of two minor sons.

3. Learned counsel for the State has resisted the prayer, submitting that the petitioner is entangled in multiple criminal proceedings pending in various jurisdictions, the nature and magnitude of which, it is contended, disentitle him to any discretionary interim relief. It was further argued that the exigencies of medical care could be addressed through alternative arrangements and that the petitioner possesses efficacious statutory remedies under ordinary criminal law by seeking bail in the respective cases.

4. Having heard learned counsel and upon meticulous scrutiny of the documentary evidence placed before this Court, it emerges that the petitioner has endured pre-trial incarceration for a period exceeding six years and seven months. Despite such prolonged (Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:22:58 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:35:11 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5170] (3 of 4) [CRLW-3210/2025] custody, the trials in the pending matters have not yet commenced. The multiplicity and geographical dispersion of these cases render the simultaneous pursuit of bail virtually impracticable, thereby exposing the petitioner to the deleterious effects of protracted pre-trial detention. Such detention, in the absence of trial, invokes serious constitutional considerations touching upon the petitioner's fundamental right to personal liberty and the guarantee of a fair and expeditious adjudication.

5. The petitioner's plea for temporary release is buttressed by incontrovertible medical evidence demonstrating the urgent necessity of his presence to facilitate critical medical intervention for his wife. The absence of any other adult family member capable of assuming responsibility renders the petitioner's personal attendance both indispensable and humane. Continued denial of temporary liberty under these circumstances would be manifestly harsh and inconsistent with the overarching humanitarian ethos that permeates criminal jurisprudence.

6. While cognizant of the pendency of multiple criminal cases, this Court reiterates the well-settled principle that the mere multiplicity of cases cannot, in itself, justify indefinite pre-trial incarceration, particularly where trials have not commenced. The Supreme Court has, in a series of pronouncements, underscored that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot assume a punitive character and that liberty, being the norm and detention the exception, must be preserved by imposing appropriate safeguards.

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:22:58 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:35:11 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:5170] (4 of 4) [CRLW-3210/2025]

7.In the present case, the confluence of extraordinarily prolonged pre-trial custody, the absence of trial proceedings, and the acute and verifiable medical exigencies of the petitioner's wife compel the conclusion that the petitioner is deserving of temporary relief.

8. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted interim bail for a period of 30 days from the date of actual release, upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- along with two solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur. The Superintendent shall attest the bond and sureties and effectuate the release forthwith. The petitioner shall return to custody upon the expiry of the bail period.

9. It is expressly clarified that this interim relief is purely humanitarian in character, without any expression of opinion on the merits of the pending criminal proceedings. The petitioner shall scrupulously comply with all conditions and security requirements imposed by the competent authority, thereby safeguarding the interests of justice while ensuring the protection of fundamental rights.

(FARJAND ALI),J 35-Mamta/-

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 04:22:58 PM) (Downloaded on 03/02/2026 at 08:35:11 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur