High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur rejected bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by Suraj Singh accused in offences including murder. Held that no substantial change in circumstances justified bail despite long custody.
Application for enlargement on bail rejected.
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 Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5872/2019
Suraj Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh Bhadoriya, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste Bhadoriya, Resident Of A-407, Talwandi, Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Kota, District Kota. (Lodged In District Jail, Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order
22/08/2019
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.56/2011 of Police Bijolia, District Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 353, 332, 307, 302 and 120B I.P.C. This bail application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejection of second bail application of the petitioner by this Court on 5.12.2018, statements of some of the prosecution witnesses have been recorded though their statements are not much relevant. It is submitted that the prosecution produced a list of 100 prosecution witnesses and out of those only 37 prosecution
(2 of 2)
[CRLMB-5872/2019]
witnesses have been examined till date. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody from last about three years and there is no likelihood that trial against the petitioner would be concluded in near future. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that the first bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 21.11.2017 and second bail application was rejected on 05.12.2018 and after that no substantial change in the circumstances has taken place. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the trial against the petitioner and other co-accused persons is going on in regular pace and there is no delay on the part of the prosecution and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of delay in trial.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the orders whereby the earlier bail applications of the petitioner were rejected and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
3-Babulal/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering the gravity of the charges and length of custody.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Suraj Singh
State Of Rajasthan
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
