Allowed

Manish v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 May 2023CRLMB/5134/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for narcotic offenses. The court noted the petitioner's incarceration since 2019, the failure of prosecution witnesses to appear, and the co-accused's prior bail, deeming release just and proper.

What did the court decide?

Accused petitioner released on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

Manish Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.5134/2023

¶3

Manish S/o Sh. Dilip Kumar, aged about 27 Years, R/o 5 K.D., Tehsil Rawla, District Sri Ganganagar. (Presently lodged at Sub Jail, Anoopgarh)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

¶7

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Devi Lal Rawla Mr. Pravesh Kumar
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi,P.P.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order

¶9

29/05/2023

¶10

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.64/2019 registered at Police Station Rawla, District Sriganganagar for the offences under Sections 8/21 and 22 of the NDPS Act.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 04.05.2019. The charges were framed against the petitioner under Sections 8/21, 22, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act on 02.07.2020. Learned counsel submitted that out of a total 15 witnesses, till date no witness has appeared before the competent criminal court for testimony. Learned counsel submitted that repeated reminders/summons/directions have been issued to prosecution witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) from

¶13

[CRLMB-5134/2023]

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

15.11.2021 to 03.03.2023 but no one has turned up without any valid reasons for tendering their evidence.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that coaccused Vishnu has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 21.04.2023 passed in S.B.CRLMB No.14597/2023.

¶17

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for almost 4 years and looking to the pace at which trial is being conducted, the same is not likely to be concluded in near future. Learned counsel relies upon a judgment of three Judges bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in 2021(3) SCC 173 . Learned counsel implored the Court to accept the bail application.

¶18

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.A. Najeeb ( supra ) has observed as under:-

¶19

“17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part – III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but th rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of

¶20

[CRLMB-5134/2023]

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.”

¶23

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application however, he was not in a position to refute the fact that co-accused Vishnu has already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 21.04.2023.

¶24

In view of discussion made above, particularly keeping in view the period of incarceration already undergone by the petitioner and also the fact that the trial is not likely to be completed in near future and looking to the fact co-accused – Vishnu has already been granted bail, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶25

Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner - Manish S/o Sh. Dilip Kumar arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.64/2019 registered at Police Station Rawla, District Sriganganagar shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

¶26

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶27

95-Ravi Kh/-

Manish v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kana @ Kanhaiya Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sant Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Balmukand Vs State of Rajasthan

Shanti Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan