Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Neetu Ram @ Beetu vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 July, 2026
Author: Ashok Kumar Jain
Bench: Ashok Kumar Jain
[2026:RJ-JP:32602]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8683/2025
CNR: RJHC010625492025
URN: CRLMB / 18027U / 2025
Sukhdev S/o Ramesh Kumar Rajput, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Sangha, Police Station Sardulgarh, District Mansa, Punjab
(Presently Lodged At Churu Jail)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13707/2023
CNR: RJHC010794952023
URN: CRLMB / 27781U / 2023
Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Rajkumar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Babalpur, Fatehbad Sadar P.s., Fatehabad, Haryana (Confined In
Sub Jail, Rajgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Narendra Kumar S/o Chaju Ram, R/o Lambor Badi, Tehsil
Rajgarh, Dist. Churu
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1665/2025
CNR: RJHC010133142025
URN: CRLMB / 3623U / 2025
Vishwas @ Khetpal S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Mphammadpur Rohi , Tehsil Fateshbaad, Haryana (Presently
Lodged In Sub Jail Rajgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 05:34:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 09:15:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32602] (2 of 9) [CRLMB-8683/2025]
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8685/2025
CNR: RJHC010625522025
URN: CRLMB / 18030U / 2025
1. Neetu Ram @ Beetu S/o Laxman Ram Rajpur, Aged About
28 Years, Resident Of Sangha, Police Station Sardulgarh,
District Mansa, Punjab (Presently Lodged At Churu Jail)
2. Sunil Kumar S/o Banwari Lal Rajput, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of Sangha, Police Station Sardulgarh, District
Mansa, Punjab (Presently Lodged At Churu Jail)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratish Bhatnagar
Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi with
Mr. Naresh Singh Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Omprakash Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
17/07/2026
1. The present bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS are
filed by the applicants-accused (1) Sukhdev S/o Ramesh
Kumar Rajput, (2) Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Rajkumar, (3)
Vishwas @ Khetpal S/o Om Prakash, (4) Neetu Ram @
Beetu S/o Laxman Ram Rajpur & (5) Sunil Kumar S/o
Banwari Lal Rajput, seeking bail in respect of a criminal
case registered as FIR No.283/2021 dated 01.08.2021
registered at P.S. Rajgarh, District – Churu, for the offence
under Sections 302, 395, 396 & 120-B of IPC.
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 05:34:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 09:15:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32602] (3 of 9) [CRLMB-8683/2025]
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the
applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter and the
investigation against them are complete and they are no
more required in investigation. They further submits that
there are no chance of fleeing of applicants accused from the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The applicants do not have
any criminal antecedents. They also submits that the
applicants undertake not to repeat offence and cooperate
with investigation/trial, which will take time.
3. Learned counsels for the applicant-accused submits that for
incident in the night of 31st July and 1st August, 2021, an FIR
is registered on 1st August, 2021, against unknown person.
He also submitted that during investigation these applicants
were arrested on 3rd August, 2021 and since then they are in
custody. They also submitted that the period of custody is
almost five years and till date the Trial Court has not
concluded the trial. They also submitted that two accused
Vishnu and Laxman Ram were granted bail by Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court on 22.11.2024.
4. Learned counsels for the applicants have further referred
order dated 04th May, 2026, in SLP (Criminal) Appeal
No.7502/2026 (Sahil Manoj Machare Vs. State of
Maharashtra) and submitted that in case relating to Section
302 read with Section 34 IPC, Hon’ble Supreme Court has
granted bail to an accused, who was in custody since
01.11.2022 only on the ground that the accused has right of
speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. They further submits that these applicants also
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 05:34:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 09:15:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32602] (4 of 9) [CRLMB-8683/2025]
have a right of speedy trial but the Trial Court has not
concluded the trial in last five years and the applicants are in
custody for no reason.
5. Learned counsels have further referred the judgment in case
of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2025
INSC 162 (Criminal Appeal No. 621 of 2025) and submitted
that it is mandatory under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India for the Investigating Agency to disclose and inform the
ground of arrest before arresting the petitioners but in the
instance case the ground of arrest has not been disclosed at
the time of arrest. They have referred the memo of arrest
and submitted that no ground has been mentioned by the
Police at the time of arrest to these accused, thus, the arrest
is itself contrary to statutory provisions and constitutional
safeguards available to the applicants.
6. Learned counsels have further submitted that the incident
has not been witnessed by anyone and there is no eye
witness to the incident. They further submitted that the case
squarely rest upon circumstantial evidence but there is no
circumstances, which connects any of the applicants with the
incident. They also submitted that the goats, owned by
deceased were stolen after the murder of two persons and
some of them were recovered at the instance of other
person and not from the possession of any of the applicants.
They also submitted that even the weapon of the crime has
not been connected with the present applicants, and
circumstances are not sufficient to convict them. They also
submitted that there is no connecting material submitted by
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 05:34:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 09:15:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32602] (5 of 9) [CRLMB-8683/2025]
the prosecuting agency to connect these applicants with the
incident, therefore, applicants are facing the charge wherein
there is no evidence against the applicants. Hence, they are
entitled for bail.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail
applications and submitted that the allegations are grave
and serious in nature. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted
that it is a case of double murder and soon after the incident
report has been registered. He also submitted that after
arrest of the applicants their information has been recorded
and sufficient material is available before the Trial Court to
proceed.
8. Heard learned counsels for the applicants and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both
the parties.
9. During course of arguments we have called the status report
from the Trial Court and the same has been received by us.
The report indicate that on 04.04.2022 the charge has been
framed against the applicants and thereafter the statement
of PW/1 and PW/2 were recorded on 18 th August, 2023 but
an adjournment was sought from the side of accused and
ultimately the cross-examination was closed on 11 th
December, 2023. Accused Sunil has filed an application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 05.10.2024, which was decided
on 19th February, 2025 and two witnesses PW/1 Narendra
and PW/2 Tarachand were called for cross-examination.
There was a further delay on side of accused and ultimately
the cross-examination from Tarachand was completed on
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 05:34:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 09:15:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32602] (6 of 9) [CRLMB-8683/2025]
19th February, 2026. As per report, 23 witnesses out of 35
were already recorded and one witness has been left by
prosecution. The reason of delay is explained by the Trial
Court and same is adjournment by the counsel for the
accused. The delay is primarily on part of the applicants-
accused and not on the part of prosecution. The Trial Court
has assured that all endeavors be made to conclude the trial
as early as possible.
10. In case of Sahil Manoj Machare Vs. State of
Maharashtra (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has
considered SLP relating to bail to applicant, who was in
custody since 01.11.2022 wherein while allowing the bail
application it has been observed as follows:-
“4. We take notice of the fact that the petitioner is
no judicial custody since 1-11-2022. Although the
charge came to be framed by the Trial Court in the
year 2024, yet till this date not a single witness has
been examined.
5. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are
left with no other option but to say that the right of
the accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution could be said to
have been infringed.
6. We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is
charged with the offence of murder but time and
again, we have said that howsoever serious the
crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is
infringed, then Court must consider the plea for bail
appropriately.
7. Here is a case wherein past almost 4 years, the
petitioner is in jail but not a single witness has been
examined.
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 05:34:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 09:15:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32602] (7 of 9) [CRLMB-8683/2025]
8. 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.”
11. On basis of incident in the night of 31 st July and 1st August,
2021, an FIR was registered after few hours of the incident
and there is no delay in report. Since at the time of incident
no one could be identified for commission of crime,
therefore, the report was registered against unknown
persons. These applicants were arrested on 03 rd August,
2021. Certain informations recorded by these applicants
were recorded under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. The
prosecution has recovered certain articles pursuant to the
information. The material on record clearly indicate that it is
a case of double murder wherein two persons Krishna Kumar
and Rajesh have died due to Ante mortem injuries while
committing dacoity. All these applicants are charged on the
basis of circumstantial evidence as forwarded by
Investigating Agency at the time of filing of charge-sheet.
While considering the bail application we are not in a position
to analyze the merits of the evidence brought on record by
the prosecution, therefore, we cannot draw a conclusion that
till date no evidence has brought on record.
12. No doubt about the fact that the applicants have a right to
speedy trial and it is a fundamental right, as enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The applicants are in
custody for almost five years. The report sent by the Trial
Court indicate that there was delay only due to these
applicants. Two material witnesses PW/1 Narendra and PW/2
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 05:34:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 09:15:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32602] (8 of 9) [CRLMB-8683/2025]
Tarachand were examined on 29th September, 2023 and the
statement of Tarachand was completed only on 19 th
February, 2026. The report received from the Trial Court
indicate that the trial has been delayed by all these
applicants, therefore, we are unable to consider the ground
of delay to grant bail to these applicants.
13. Having considered the entire material available on record
and also the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court we are of
the view that the delay has been occasioned only at the
instance of the applicants/accused. Therefore, they are not
entitled for bail only on the ground they are in custody for
last five years. Similarly no case on merit has been made out
to release the applicants on bail. Two accused Vishnu and
Laxman Ram were not charged for murder, hence, their case
is different with the applicants.
14. In case of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in 2025 INSC 1288, it was held that the
application of judgment is prospective. The arrest in the case
has been effected on 03rd August, 2021 (way before ratio
laid down in case of Vihaan Kumar). Considering the gravity
of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the
case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail applications of the
applicants accused, as no case for bail is made out on any of
the ground.
15. Accordingly, the applications for bail filed under Section 483
of BNSS preferred by (1) Sukhdev S/o Ramesh Kumar
Rajput, (2) Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Rajkumar,
(3) Vishwas @ Khetpal S/o Om Prakash, (4) Neetu
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 05:34:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 09:15:06 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32602] (9 of 9) [CRLMB-8683/2025]
Ram @ Beetu S/o Laxman Ram Rajpur & (5) Sunil
Kumar S/o Banwari Lal Rajput are hereby dismissed.
16. The Trial Court is directed to fixed the case on day to day
basis and try to conclude the trial as early as possible
preferably within a period of one year from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order. The Superintendent of
Police, Churu is also directed to ensure that all process in
calling witness be served on time and the witnesses
remained present to conclude the trial in aforementioned
period.
17. Office is directed to send copy of this order to District Judge,
Churu and also the Superintendent of Police, Churu for
compliance.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
4/Ishan Dixit/359
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 05:34:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/07/2026 at 09:15:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
