The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan allowed the petitioner's third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. considering his incarceration for six years without conclusion of the trial.
Petitioner to be enlarged on bail in FIR No.166/2017 PS Lohawat by executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:27395]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 3300/2024
Sukhdev S/o Ramu Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Lohawat Vishnawas, P.s. Lohawat, Dist. Jodhpur Rural. (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail Phalodi).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Ashok Bishnoi |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
08/07/2024
The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.166/2017 of Police Station Lohawat, Jodhpur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 364, 404/34 of IPC. He has preferred this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is inside the jail since 31.08.2018 and till date, only 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined, out of total 45 witnesses and the trial is yet pending. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, in which, while dealing with the cases where fetters are placed on Court’s power to grant bail and the trial has not been completed within a reasonable time, it has been observed as under:
(2 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JD:27395]
[CRLMB-3300/2024]
“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 the 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 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.”
A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No.14958/2022), vide order dated 17.03.2023, also observed as follows:
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3961/2022], Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.668/2020), Tapan Das Vs. Union of India [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5617/2021], Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5187/2019], Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5397/2019], Nadeem Vs. State of UP [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.1524/2022] and Mukesh Vs. The State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4089/2021] has granted bail to the accused persons, against whom the allegations are of transporting or possessing narcotic contraband above commercial quantity, on the ground of custody period and taking into consideration the fact that the trial against the said accused persons will take time in completion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered for release of the accused persons who were in custody from two years to
(3 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JD:27395]
[CRLMB-3300/2024]
four years. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this fifth bail application solely on the ground of custody period of the accused petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the trial against him has not been completed till date.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this third bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Umesh Vyas S/o Shri Ganeshlal Ji shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.15/2019 of Police Station Charbhuja, District Rajsamand provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.”
The petitioner is inside the jail for about six years and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail made by the counsel for the petitioner.
I have considered the arguments advanced before me and gone through the progress report as well as material available on record.
It is not disputed that the accused petitioner has so far suffered incarceration of about six years and the trial is still going on, therefore, looking to the prolonged custody of the petitioner, it would not be appropriate to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Sukhdev S/o Ramu Ram shall be enlarged on bail in FIR No.166/2017 of Police Station Lohawat, Jodhpur provided he
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-3300/2024]
[2024:RJ-JD:27395]
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
186-MS/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the prolonged custody of about six years and the pending trial.
Whether the trial has been completed within a reasonable time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs. K.A. NajeebRelied on¶13
(2021) 3 SCC 713 · Who else cites this
Umesh Vyas vs. State of RajasthanRelied on¶18
Umesh Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No.14958/2022)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sukhdev S/o Ramu Ram
State Of Rajasthan
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Manoj Kumar Garg
Parties & counsel
