Dismissed

Nazir Khan v. State

Rajasthan HC5 Oct 2018CRLMB/3991/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the third bail application of an accused facing serious charges under the Explosives Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and IPC. Despite prolonged custody, the court rejected the plea due to the gravity of offences concerning national security, the recovery of explosives, and the non-release of a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; trial to be expedited.

Nazir Khan Vs State — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 3991/2018

¶3

Nazir Khan S/o Meeru Khan, By Caste Muslim, R/o Rathoron-KaTala (Ramjan-Ki-Gafan), Police Station, Beejrad, District Barmer. (Presently lodged at District Jail, Barmer)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Bora, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Kumar and Saransh Viz. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.L. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. K.L. Bishnoi for the State.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶9

Order

¶10

05/10/2018

¶11

Accused-petitioner, facing trial in Sessions Case No.04/16 pending before Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.2, Barmer for serious offences under Sections 5/9B, 6/9B of the Explosives Act 1884, 4, 5 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act 1908, 7/25(1)(D) (1-AA), 29 of the Arms Act, 3/10, 13, 18, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and 153-A, 120-B of the IPC, has laid this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The trial of the aforementioned sessions case is founded on FIR No.310/2009 registered at Police Station Sardar, Barmer.

¶12

At the threshold, on behalf of petitioner, first bail application was filed bearing No.6764/16, which was dismissed on 10^th of January, 2017 as not pressed after arguing at length.

¶13

(2 of 4) [CRLMB-3991/2018]

¶14

Subsequently, at the behest of petitioner, second bail application bearing No.10305/2017 was filed and the same was dismissed on 4^th of January, 2018 by a detailed order with the following observations:

¶15

“Before parting, it is made clear that in case trial is not concluded within next three months then petitioner shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for grant of bail after the said period.”

¶16

Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Bora, while addressing on this third bail application, has confined his arguments to the extent of prolonged custody of the accused-petitioner. It is strenously urged by learned Senior Counsel that pursuant to investigation into aforesaid FIR, petitioner was apprehended on 13^th of September, 2009 and since then he is in custody, therefore, prolonged custody has furnished plausible ground for releasing him on bail. Learned Senior Counsel would urge that since arrest of the petitioner almost 9 years have passed and trial has not been completed despite directions issued by the Court inasmuch as five prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. Mr. Bora has lastly urged that the instant bail application is pending since April 2018 and the learned trial Judge has not made any endeavour to expedite the trial is a fact of great significance, which requires consideration in the backdrop of prolonged custody of the petitioner as undertrial accused.

¶17

Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mr. Thakur, submits that prosecution has already examined 81 witnesses and only 3-4 witnesses are required to be examined, therefore, considering the fact that trial is on the verge of completion, it

¶18

(3 of 4)

¶19

[CRLMB-3991/2018]

¶20

would not be appropriate to enlarge petitioner on bail in view of serious charges against him having direct ramification on security and integrity of the Nation. It is also argued by learned Addl. Advocate General that upon disclosure of petitioner and coaccused Sodhey Khan alias Sodiya, RDX was recovered, which is sufficient to show their involvement in commission of serious offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It is also submitted by learned Addl. Advocate General that under Section 43-D(5) & (6), in the event of reasonable grounds for believing that accusation against the person is prima facie true, he is not entitled for grant of bail. It is also submitted by learned Addl. Advocate General that co-accused Sodiya, who is similarly placed with the petitioner, is still in custody and has not been released on bail.

¶21

I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar.

¶22

While it is true that prolonged custody of the petitioner is a cause of concern for the Court more particularly when he is an undertrial but then considering a very vital fact that he is charged for a serious criminal delinquency, including offences having direct ramification on the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of the Country, it would not be appropriate to exercise discretion in his favour at this stage. The recovery of explosive RDX upon information furnished by the accused-petitioner has also persuaded me to invoke embargo under Section 43-D(5) & (6) of the Act. 1967 for nixing this bail application. There is yet another

¶23

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-3991/2018]

¶24

aspect of the matter that other accused Sodiya is still in custody, has also persuaded me to decline bail plea of the appellant.

¶25

Resultantly, third bail application fails and the same is hereby dismissed, however, reiterating the observations made earlier for expediting the trial.

¶26

(P.K. LOHRA),J

Nazir Khan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazir Khan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.S.R.T.C Vs Mukesh and Ors.

Smt. Yashoda Vs Vikas Songara

Abdul Abid Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunita Kanwar Vs Kamlendra Singh

Chain Shanker Vs Narayanlal and Anr.

Mishra Electronics Vs Jagdish Kumar