In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding offences under IPC and Arms Act, the High Court allowed bail primarily due to the lack of material progress in the trial despite directions to expedite it.
Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two surety bonds of like amount to the Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 7630/2018
Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Purna Ram, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Fogawas Bharathari, Bhaleri Police Station District Churu. (Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)
: Mr. Dhirendra Singh. : Mr. S.k. Vyas, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order
12/10/2018
Facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 392, 307, 457 IPC, 19/54 & 54A of the Rajasthan Excise Act and 27 of the Arms Act in Sessions Case No.23/2016, pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu, accused-petitioner has preferred this fifth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The aforementioned sessions case is founded on FIR No.98/2016 of Police Station Sujangarh, District Churu.
The first bail application of petitioner was dismissed as not pressed on 20.12.2016. Likewise, second bail application was rejected on 10.08.2017 by considering criminal antecedents of the petitioner.
The petitioner made yet another endeavor for seeking bail but his third attempt was also thwarted on 30.10.2017, however,
(2 of 4)
[CRLMB-7630/2018]
with the parting observations that learned trial Court is expected to expedite trial and conclude the same at the earliest.
When there was no material progress in the trial, petitioner again approached this Court by laying fourth bail application but the same was dismissed by a detailed order on 04.05.2018 while reiterating the observations made earlier to expedite trial at the earliest.
Arguing on this fifth bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Dhirendra Singh, that despite directions issued by the Court twice to expedite trial, so far trial has not materially progressed inasmuch as only charges are framed by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioner was arrested on 12.04.2016 and since then almost two and a half years have elapsed is a sufficient ground for favourable consideration of his bail plea solely on the ground of prolonged custody of an under-trial. It is also argued by learned counsel that prosecution has cited 18 witnesses and so far none has been examined, therefore, completion of trial is likely to take considerable time. Learned counsel has also submitted that although there is allegation of gunfire but as per prosecution no person suffered gunshot injury. While referring to criminal antecedents of the petitioner, it is submitted by learned counsel that out of 14 pending cases, in almost 9 cases petitioner has been enlarged on bail. It is also submitted by learned counsel that in one sessions case, he has been acquitted and other three cases are compromised. Thus, harping on the prolonged custody of petitioner and all these material changes in the circumstances,
(3 of 4)
[CRLMB-7630/2018]
learned counsel submits that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General, has opposed the bail plea of petitioner. It is submitted by learned AAG that considering criminal antecedents of the petitioner, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and also objectively examined the material change in the circumstances canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
While it is true that granting bail in some other matters may not be a material change in the circumstances but then progression of trial at snail’s pace is a cause of concern. I am constrained to observe that despite directions issued by the Court on 30.10.2017 and 04.05.2018, there is no material progress in the trial against petitioner.
The Supreme Court in case of Moti Ram & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. [(1978)4 SCC 47] has observed:
“The consequences of pre-trial detention are grave. Defendants presumed innocent are subjected to the psychological and physical deprivations of jail life, usually under more onerous conditions than are imposed on convicted defendants. The jailed defendant loses his job if he has one and is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence. Equally important, the burden of his detention frequently falls heavily on the innocent members of his family.”
(4 of 4)
[CRLMB-7630/2018]
In view of the foregoing discussion, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I feel inclined to accept this fifth bail application.
Accordingly, the fifth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Purna Ram, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 98/2016 of Police Station Sujangarh, District Churu, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
Twinkle Singh/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted despite criminal antecedents due to prolonged delay in trial and snail's pace of proceedings by the trial court
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Moti Ram & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.Explained¶27
[(1978)4 SCC 47] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Dilip Kumar S/o Shri Purna Ram
State of Rajasthan
P.K. LOHRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
