Rajasthan High Court
Shahbaz Ahmad S/O Sh. Mumtaz Ahmad vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 February, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
1878/2021
Shahbaz Ahmad S/o Sh. Mumtaz Ahmad, Aged About 48 Years,
R/o Mohalla Katra Bazar Bhadohi U.P. Presently Lodged In
Central Jail Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mujahid Ahmad through VC
Mr. Nishant Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Yadav, AAG
Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
24/02/2021
1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No.121/2008 was registered at Police Station Kotwali,
Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur for offence under Sections 153 & 153-A
I.P.C., Sections 4, 5 & 6 of Explosive Substance Act. and Sections
16A, 18 of U.A.P. Act.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that as many as
nine F.I.Rs. were lodged on 13.05.2008, with regard to bomb blast
which took place at Jaipur (Raj.). Police filed charge-sheet in eight
cases against five accused-persons. In all the eight cases, out of
five persons, four persons have been given death penalty and only
present petitioner was acquitted in all eight cases. It is also
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-1878/2021]
contended that after acquittal, petitioner was not released and
when petitioner inquired from the Jail Authorities, he was informed
that two more cases were still pending against him. Petitioner was
granted bail in one of the two cases on 08.01.2021 by the Apex
Court, however, petitioner was arrested from the jail in the
present F.I.R. on 25.12.2019.
4. It is further contended that all the nine F.I.Rs. are of the year
2008, are relating to bomb blast cases. Charge-sheet was filed in
only eight cases and in all the eight cases, petitioner has been
acquitted. There is no reason for arresting the petitioner after
twelve years of lodging of the F.I.R. when the allegations in all the
F.I.Rs. are same.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of
the State has not disputed the facts, which have been placed
before the Court. He has admitted that all the nine F.I.Rs. pertain
to bomb blast cases and are similar.
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. It is indeed surprising that when the petitioner was
languishing in jail (I am using the term 'languishing in jail'
because petitioner remained in custody for twelve years and was
ultimately found not guilty in all cases). As to why the petitioner
was not arrested in this case when he remained in custody for
twelve years, is a query put up before the learned Additional
Advocate General, to which the learned Additional Advocate
General is clueless. Learned Additional Advocate General was not
in a position to apprise the Court as to why petitioner has been
arrested in the present F.I.R. when he was held not guilty in eight
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-1878/2021]
similar F.I.Rs.
8. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the
petitioner and taking note of the fact that the present F.I.R. is akin
to the eight F.I.Rs. in which the petitioner has been found not
guilty, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.
9. This bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed
that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he
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 he 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 /62
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
