Allowed

Shankar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Feb 2024CRLMB/690/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to the petitioner, a co-accused in an NDPS case, citing the slow trial pace, absence of prosecution witnesses, and the recent bail grant to his co-accused on the same facts. The court held that indefinite incarceration due to prosecutorial negligence is unjustified.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. with a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/ and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each each, to appear till trial completion.

Shankar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2024)

(1 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:7446]

[CRLMB-690/2024]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3^rd Bail Application No. 690/2024

¶6

Shankar Lal S/o Shri Nanda Ji, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Dharata, P.s. Bhinder, Dist. Udaipur (Rajasthan) (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Sirohi).

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Order

¶14

13/02/2024

¶15

This Court perused the material available on record.

¶16

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.45/2020 of Police Station Abu Road RIICO, District Sirohi for the offences punishable under Sections 8/18, 25 & 29 IPC. He has preferred this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner and the co-accused are on the same footing, as far as the allegation is concerned, as the contraband in question recovered from the vehicle, wherein both of them i.e. petitioner and co-accused were travelling.

¶18

3.1 Learned counsel further submits that the date of custody of the present petitioner is also same as that of the co-accused Madhulal because both were behind the bars since 20.03.2020.

[2024:RJ-JD:7446]

[CRLMB-690/2024]

(2 of 4)

3.2 Learned counsel also submits that the co-accused person namely Madhulal has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 13.12.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6120/2023. The order reads as follows:

¶23

“1. The present bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the applicant, who is in custody in connection with the FIR No.45/2020 registered at Police Station RIICO Abu Road, District Sirohi for the offences punishable under Sections 8/15, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present applicant is behind the bars since 20.03.2020 and trial is proceeding at a very slow pace and even the prosecution witnesses (PW-6, PW-8, PW-12 and PW-16) are not turning up in the witness box in spite of issuance of bailable/arrest warrants.

¶25

He submitted that on account of lackadaisical approach of the prosecution witnesses, applicant’s right of speedy trial is being impinged and thus, he is entitled for the benefit of bail on the basis of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 SCC Onlince SC 352 and Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha : Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4169/2023.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by contending that out of 16 witnesses, 12 witnesses have tendered their evidence and all the material witnesses have been examined. He submitted that instead of granting indulgence to the applicant from whose conscious possession contraband substance was recovered, a direction be issued to the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the case.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the proceedings of the trial Court.

¶28

On perusal of the same, this Court finds that the trial Court has made all honest endeavors to ensure that the prosecution witnesses of whom, most of them are police personnel be called in the witness box but for one reason or the other they have not appeared in the Court for leading evidence.

¶29

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the applicant cannot be kept incarcerated for indefinite period on account of negligence of the prosecution.

¶30

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and following the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:7446]

[CRLMB-690/2024]

of Delhi) reported in 2023 SCC Onlince SC 352 and Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha : Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4169/2023, this Court is inclined to accept the bail application filed by the applicant.

¶35

Consequently, the present bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. It is ordered that the applicant – Madhulal S/o Kanhaiyalal arrested in connection with FIR No.45/2020 registered at Police Station RIICO Abu Road, District Sirohi shall be released on bail; provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of 1,00,000/and two sound and solvent sureties of 50,000/- each to the₹ satisfaction of the 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.”

¶36

Learned Prosecutor Prosecutor though opposes the bail application, but is unable to refute the fact regarding the custody, the allegations having been of same nature and also the fact that the co-accused Madhu Lal has already released on bail.

¶37

Taking into consideration the custody period of the petitioner; co-accused has already been released on bail and the factual matrix of both the accused being similar, this Court is of the opinion that at this stage, the custody of the petitioner in this case is not warranted.

¶38

Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that conclusion of the proceedings is likely to take some time and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶39

Accordingly, this third bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Shankar Lal S/o Shri Nanda Ji shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.45/2020 of Police Station Abu Road RIICO, District Sirohi

[2024:RJ-JD:7446]

[CRLMB-690/2024]

(4 of 4)

provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- 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.

¶44

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶45

11-Zeeshan

Shankar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Lal 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

Manohar Lal Bissu Vs the State of Rajasthan

Anil Vs State of Rajasthan

Raja Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Badrilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sugan Prajapat Vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Kanta Parihar Vs Shilpa Parihar