Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rameshdan vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:35618]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 6546/2026
CNR: RJHC010458642026 | URN: CRLMB / 14444U / 2026
Rameshdan S/o Chatardan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Dhadharwala, Police Station Chakhu, District Phalodi, Rajasthan
(Lodged In Dist. Jail, Phalodi)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. NK Gurjar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
30/07/2026
1. This third application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner, who has been
arrested in the present matter. The requisite details of the matter
are tabulated below:
S. No. Particulars Of the case 1. FIR Number 95/2020 2. Police Station Chakhu 3. District Jodhpur rural 4. Offences alleged Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 427, 342, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 440 of IPC.
2. The 1st and 2nd bail application filed on behalf of the
petitioner, i.e. S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10929/2025
and no. 4100/2026 were dismissed as not pressed vide orderS
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 01:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 07:56:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35618] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-6546/2026]
dated 15.12.2025 and 27.04.2026, passed by this Court. While
rejecting second bail application, a liberty was granted to the
petitioner to file a fresh bail application before learned trial court.
After the dismissal of second bail application, the application for
bail filed before trial court has been rejected on 05.05.2026.
Hence, this third bail application has been filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public
Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter. He further
submits that none of the injured persons has, in their statements
recorded before the trial court, attributed any specific injury to the
petitioner. The other co-accused namely Dineshdan, Jasudan and
Narsi Ram have already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate
benche of this court.
5. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner has
been in custody since 27.03.2021, that is, he has already
undergone custody of more than 5 years, which constitutes a
substantial part of the sentence and that continued detention in
these circumstances amounts to punishment prior to adjudication
of guilt, contrary to the presumption of innocence.
6. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Sahil Manoj
Machare v. State of Maharashtra, Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) No. 7502 of 2026, decided on 4-5-2026 (2026 INSC 445),
wherein the accused, charged under Section 302/34 IPC, had
remained in judicial custody for nearly four years without a single
witness having been examined, despite charges having been
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 01:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 07:56:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35618] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-6546/2026]
framed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, setting aside the High
Court’s refusal of bail, held that “howsoever serious the crime may
be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must
consider the plea for bail appropriately,” and directed release of
the accused on bail.
7. It is submitted that Article 21 guarantees that no person shall
be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a
procedure that is reasonable, fair, and just. A procedure that
permits an undertrial to remain in custody indefinitely, without any
certainty as to when the trial will conclude, ceases to be
reasonable, fair, or just, and therefore falls foul of this
constitutional guarantee. This is precisely why continued
detention, disproportionate to the stage the trial has reached,
must be treated as a direct and irreversible infringement of the
right guaranteed under Article 21, and not merely as an incidental
consequence of the pendency of proceedings.
8. It is contended that the petitioner has no criminal
antecedent, and the pace of the trial is very slow as in nearly six
years only 16 out of 31 listed prosecution witnesses have been
examined till date. Therefore, he prayed that the petitioner may
be enlarged on bail.
9. Per contra, learned public prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application and stated that the allegations
levelled against the accused-petitioner are of a grievous nature,
and hence the benefit of bail may not be granted to him.
10. This Court is of the view that personal liberty, once curtailed,
cannot be meaningfully restored by an eventual acquittal or by the
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 01:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 07:56:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35618] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-6546/2026]
imposition of a reduced sentence at the conclusion of trial, for the
years spent in custody during the interregnum can never truly be
returned to the applicant. The continued incarceration of the peti-
tioner, in the face of a slow-moving trial and prolonged custody,
would amount to a deprivation of liberty far more than what can
be justified at this stage of the proceedings, particularly where the
fundamental right under Article 21 protects not merely liberty in
theory, but liberty in a real and meaningful sense.
11. A co-ordinate bench of this court, while dealing with same is-
sue, held as under:
“16. While keeping an accused detained, the opportunity to the
prosecutor to lead evidence can only be given for a reasonable pe-
riod. The wider connotation of the phrase ‘reasonable period’ be un-
derstood 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 inter-
pretation of the expression ‘reasonable period’ is taken on the pre-
text of certain unavoidable circumstances, then it can only be dou-
bled 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 prose-
cutor if the accused is behind the bars. The cases which are classi-
fied 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
ofm affording an opportunity to the prosecutor to prove the charge
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 oth-
erwise guaranteed by the Constitution of India.”
12. It would be apposite to refer to the observation of Hon’ble
Apex Court in case of Vickki Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 01:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 07:56:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35618] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-6546/2026]
(Special Leave to Appeal Crl No. 9430/2026) wherein the
Hon’ble court has observed as under:
“7. It’s been almost nine years that the petitioner is in judicial cus-
tody as an undertrial prisoner.
8. What is most disappointing is what has been observed by the
High Court in Para 8.
9. Para 8 reads thus: ”
The Supreme Court in case of X vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr., 2024 INSC 909 has held that once the trial has com-
menced, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion,
which may either result in conviction or acquittal of the ac-
cused. The bail should not be normally granted to the ac-
cused after the charge has been framed. It should also not be
granted by looking into the discrepancies here or there in the
deposition.”
10. It appears that the High Court has not been able to understand
the true purport and ratio of the decision of this Court, referred to,
in para 8. All that the High Court ought to have considered is the
fact that the petitioner is languishing in jail as an undertrial pris-
oner past nine years. What more was required for the High Court to
consider the plea of the petitioner for bail, keeping his right of
speedy trial in mind as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitu-
tion.
11. We believe we should not wait even for the State to appear. This
is a gross case wherein the fundamental right of the petitioner to
have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution
could be said to have been infringed.
12. In many of our Judgments and on many occasions, we have said
in so many words that howsoever grave the crime may be, but if the
accused is denied his right of speedy trial and is languishing in jail
for years together and for no fault on his part, he cannot be kept in
jail for indefinite period. 13. In view of the aforesaid, we order that
the petitioner be released on bail forthwith, if not required in any
other case, subject to terms and conditions that the trial court may
deem fit to impose.”
13. Having considered the rival submissions, perused the mate-
rial available on record, specifically considering that chargesheet
has been filed; only 16 of the 31 cited prosecution witnesses have
been examined till date; that the petitioner has remained in cus-
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 01:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 07:56:59 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35618] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-6546/2026]
tody since 27.03.2021 and that the trial is likely to take a consid-
erable time to conclude; without expressing any opinion on the
merits or demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
14. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of the
BNSS stands allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner, as
named in the cause title, who has been arrested in connection
with the above-mentioned FIR, shall be released on bail, if not
wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond
in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.
50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, for his
appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing
and whenever called upon to do so, till the completion of the trial.
15. In addition to the above, the petitioner is directed to appear
before the concerned Police Station in the first week of every
quarter of the year.
It is made clear that if the petitioner indulges in any similar
kind of criminal activity, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free
to file an application for cancellation of bail.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
228/Jitender
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 01:25:03 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 07:56:59 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
