Rekha Sharma W/O Sumit Sharma @ ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 1315 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
                                1884/2021

Rekha Sharma W/o Sumit Sharma @ Raja, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Surya Nagar Colony Ward No. 23 Behind Panchayat Samiti
Bandikui Ps Bandikui Dist. Dausa Raj. At Present Tenant In
29A/f2/26 Godavari Apartment Sector 29 Pratap Nagar Jaipur
Raj. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman with Mr. Rajveer Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

08/02/2021

1. Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section

439 Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.548/2020 was registered at Police Station Pratap

Nagar, District Jaipur for offence under Sections 8 & 21 of NDPS

Act.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner

was arrested on 18.10.2020.Charge-sheet was required to be filed

within sixty days i.e. it should be filed on 18.12.2020. Since

04.11.2020, proceedings were drawn in absence of the petitioner.

Thereby, she was deprived of her right to seek default bail. It is

also contended that charge-sheet in this case was filed on

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-1884/2021]

13.01.2021, as per order sheet dated 18.01.2021, which was filed

in absence of the petitioner. Petitioner was not present in Court on

18.01.2021.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Manoj

Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan" S.B. Criminal Writ No.903/2018,

wherein this Court has placed reliance on "Rakesh Kumar Paul

Vs. State of Assam" 2017(2) WLC (SC) Criminal 651, wherein it

is held that it is the duty and responsibility of a Court to apprise

the accused of his or her indefeasible right and that a contrary

view would diminish the respect of personal liberty, on which

much emphasis has been laid by the Courts.

5. Reliance was also placed on "Rajnikant Jivanlal Patel Vs.

Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi"

AIR 1990 Supreme Court 71, wherein it was held that the right to

bail under Section 167(2) Proviso (a) of Cr.P.C. is an absolute right

and Magistrate has no power to remand a person beyond the

stipulated period of sixty days.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail

application. It is contended that charge-sheet has been filed.

7. I have considered the contentions.

8. From the order-sheet, it is revealed that petitioner was not

even produced before the Court from 04.11.2020 till date of filing

of challan and as challan was filed after the stipulated period,

petitioner is thus entitled to default bail. Consequently, I deem it

proper to allow the second bail application.

9. This second bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-1884/2021]

directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided

she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction

of the trial Court with the stipulation that she shall appear before

that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on

all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do

so.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /61

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)