Rajasthan HC Grants Bail in Murder Case, Orders Vigilance Inquiry Into Trial Court After Star Witness Turned Hostile Over 19-Month Delay
Justice Ashok Kumar Jain allowed a third bail plea in a 2023 murder case and directed a vigilance inquiry into the trial court after the prosecution's star witness denied being an eyewitness following an unexplained 19-month gap between examination-in-chief and cross-examination.
The Rajasthan High Court's Bench at Jaipur on 3 August 2026 granted bail to Lekhraj, an accused named as the main assailant in a 2023 murder case, while simultaneously directing the Registrar (Vigilance) to inquire into the conduct of the trial court and asking the Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Affairs to call an explanation from the Additional Public Prosecutor posted in the same court. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, sitting singly, allowed the third bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) after finding that the prosecution's star witness had, in cross-examination completed on 6 April 2026, denied witnessing the incident — nearly 19 months after his examination-in-chief was recorded on 2 September 2024. The court described the gap as “sufficient to win over the witness” and characterised what occurred as a “systematic fraud played with the criminal justice system.”
The Murder Case and Lekhraj's Arrest
FIR No. 163/2023 was registered on 13 February 2023 at Police Station Beawar City, District Ajmer, under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of a written report filed by one Vijay Singh. The police initially filed a charge-sheet against two other accused — Bharat Singh @ Kalu and Karan — under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, but kept investigation pending against Lekhraj (described as an absconder), a juvenile, and one Harshvardhan Singh @ Rahul under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Lekhraj was eventually arrested on 14 May 2023. Following a Test Identification Parade conducted with the witness Kishan Singh, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him. The FIR named Lekhraj as the main assailant, and the object used to assault the deceased was stated to have been recovered at his instance. He has remained in custody since his arrest.
The other accused — Harshvardhan Singh @ Rahul, Karan, Bharat Singh @ Kalu, and the juvenile — were already released on bail by the High Court. However, when the first bail application was dismissed on 20 April 2024, the court had distinguished Lekhraj's case on the ground that he was the main named accused, was initially absconding, and the weapon was recovered at his instance.
First and Second Bail Applications Dismissed
In the order dismissing the first bail application on 20 April 2024, the court observed that Lekhraj was named as the main assailant in the FIR and had been identified in the Test Identification Parade. At that stage, only the complainant Vijay Singh (PW-1) and his wife Mohani Devi (PW-2) had been examined, and several witnesses remained to be examined by the prosecution.
The second bail application was considered on 20 February 2025. By then, additional witnesses had been examined. PW-5 Rahul Udaynia and PW-6 Rakesh Jaipal had been declared hostile by the prosecution for not supporting the case. The court nonetheless dismissed the application, noting that Lekhraj was named as the main accused, had been identified in the TIP, and witnesses still remained to be examined.
What Changed: PW-8's Reversal in Cross-Examination
By the time the third bail application was heard, 28 of 34 prosecution witnesses listed in the charge-sheet had been examined by the trial court. The critical development was the evidence of PW-8 Kishan Singh, the star witness of the case.
PW-8's examination-in-chief, recorded on 2 September 2024, supported the prosecution. However, when cross-examination was finally completed on 6 April 2026, Kishan Singh denied witnessing the incident and stated that he had been present at a location other than the crime scene.
Counsel for Lekhraj placed heavy reliance on this cross-examination. He pointed out that at the time the earlier bail applications were decided, Kishan Singh's statement had not been concluded. He also submitted that the CCTV footage collected by police, along with a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, was undermined when PW-3, identified as the subscriber of that certificate, denied issuing it. The parents of the deceased, examined as PW-1 and PW-2, also did not support the prosecution's case, and the remaining eyewitnesses were declared hostile.
The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, contending that the allegations remained grave and serious.
The Court's Reasoning on Bail
Justice Jain weighed the changed evidentiary landscape against the gravity of the offence. The court acknowledged that Lekhraj had no criminal antecedents, that investigation was complete, and that he had been in custody continuously since 14 May 2023. With 28 witnesses already examined and the trial expected to take more time, the court found that continued detention was no longer justified.
The court was careful to note that it expressed no opinion on the merits of the case. Looking at the totality of the facts and circumstances, it granted bail subject to conditions.
The Vigilance Concern: A 19-Month Gap in Recording One Witness
The court did not stop at granting bail. Justice Jain devoted considerable attention to how the examination of PW-8 came to be split by nearly 19 months.
On 2 September 2024, when the examination-in-chief of Kishan Singh was recorded, two other accused — Tarun @ Sanju and Bharat — were absent. The trial court deferred cross-examination on the sole ground that those two accused were not present, even though the evidence being recorded was that of the prosecution's star witness.
When PW-8 appeared again on 6 April 2026, Tarun @ Sanju and Bharat were again absent. This time, the defence counsel stated no objection, and the examination-in-chief was completed on that basis. Cross-examination then followed, and the witness resiled from his earlier deposition.
The court found the adjournment on 2 September 2024 to have been granted “without applying its own mind and that too in a very liberal and casual manner.” After the cross-examination on 6 April 2026, in which PW-8 denied being an eyewitness and admitted being elsewhere, neither the trial court nor the prosecutor took any remedial step. The prosecution did not declare PW-8 hostile, did not re-examine him, and did not confront him with his earlier examination-in-chief of 2 September 2024 so as to test the veracity of the changed statement. The trial court also did not exercise its power to put questions to clarify the position.
The court observed that the gap between the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination was “sufficient to win over the witness,” and that the entire sequence pointed to a systematic subversion of the criminal justice process.
Directions Against the Trial Court and Prosecution
Justice Jain issued two institutional directions alongside the bail order.
The Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court was directed to inquire specifically into the affairs of the trial court, with particular focus on the delay in recording the statement of PW-8 Kishan Singh. The report is to be placed before the High Court.
Separately, the Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Affairs was directed to call an explanation from the Additional Public Prosecutor posted in the trial court. After conducting an inquiry, the Principal Secretary is required to submit a report to the High Court within four weeks for further action.
Outcome
The third bail application of Lekhraj was allowed. He is to be released from District Jail, Beawar on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court. The conditions attached to the bail are: he must not tamper with evidence or influence any witness; he must not indulge in any criminal activity or repeat any offence; he must attend all hearings before the trial court as directed. Violation of any condition renders the bail liable to cancellation. The Registry was directed to transmit a copy of the order to the trial court by e-mail. The bail application number is to be retained on record and listed only for compliance.