Rajasthan High Court
Rajesh Kushwaha S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 November, 2021
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1369/2021
Rajesh Kushwaha S/o Shri Ramshakal Kushwaha, Aged About 54
Years, R/o Dakshin Tola Khukhundu Ps Khukhundu Tehseel
Salempur Dist. Devriya Utterpradesh Present R/o Tenant House
Owner Shri Amer Sing Jat Government Secondary School House
No. 344 Abheypur Ps Abheypur Sector No. 19 Phase -I Panchkula
Haryana (Accused Petittioner Is In J.c. In Central Jail Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Manish Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Arvind Kumar Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment / Order
08/11/2021
The instant bail bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C has
been preferred on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial
custody in connection with FIR No.381/2016, P.S. Nasirabad
Sadar, Ajmer for the offence under Sections 8/15 of Narcotic
Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.
Looking to the huge quantity of allegedly recovered
contraband, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner,
accordingly the same is dismissed.
It would be worthwhile to mention here that this court vide
order dated 25.3.2021 and 27.4.2021 sought report from the trial
court as to why the statements of witnesses are not being
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-1369/2021]
recorded. In compliance thereof, the court below has sent report
dated 24.4.2021 showing the reason of protraction of trial.
A perusal of the report sent by the trial court reflects that till
March 2020, matter came to be adjourned for one and other
unconvincing reasons. The next reason of delay in trial has been
assigned to be the surge of Pandemic COVID-19. It is reported
that the matter was posted for evidence of prosecution on
19.1.2021 but the witness did not turn up and the matter got
adjourned upto 23.3.2021. On that date, Examination-in-chief of
PW-1 Netram got recorded but the cross-examination was
deferred at the request of counsel appearing on behalf of accused.
It is further reported by the trial court that trial court holds a
camp at Nasirabad for only six days in a month and in total 2025
cases are pending in both the courts.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the charge-sheet in
this matter came to be submitted in the year 2016 and the
petitioner is languishing in jail since then and till day even the
evidence of a single witness has not been completed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Perused the material
available on record.
A perusal of the record of the case reveals that the matter is
pending before the trial court since long, and more than 5-6 years
have elapsed but the trial could not have been completed. As per
the list of the witnesses attached with the charge-sheet, 24
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-1369/2021]
witnesses have been projected by the prosecution, out of which,
only one witness could have been examined. Most of the
witnesses are public servants being the police officials, surprisingly
no effective steps have been taken to conclude the trial. Thus it is
a case of infringement of fundamental right as guaranteed by the
Constitution of India as every accused has a fundamental right of
speedy trial.
It is not clear from the material available on record that who
is responsible for the delay occurred during the course of trial;
whether the witnesses are not being summoned properly by the
learned trial court, or though the same are being issued to the
witnesses but they are not appearing before the court for their
cross-examination in trial. Yet, the things have remained
undisputed that the petitioner is facing pending trial incarceration
since last more than six years. The responsibility to ensure that
the witnesses remain attended when they are summoned, is that
of the prosecution.
This court has repeatedly issued directions to the Director
General of Police to ensure that the official witnesses more
particularly of the police department should remain present when
they are summoned to depose before the trial court. Reference in
this regard may be made to the order dated 1.12.2015 passed by
the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in SBCr.Misc.Bail Appl. No.
9568/2015 (Ganesh Ram Vs.State of Raj.). However, it seems
that these directions are being rampantly flouted regularly. From
the facts noted above, it is apparent that prosecution has failed to
fulfill the obligation caste upon as to secure the attendance of the
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-1369/2021]
witnesses for deposing before the trial court, but because of the
lackadaisical approach of the prosecution, the accused petitioner
continued to languish in jail for more than six years. Here only one
projected witness could have been examined till date thus the
conclusion of the trial may take further long time.
In this background, and having regard to the entirety of the
facts & circumstances of the cases, this court directs the trial court
to expedite the trial, and try to get it disposed as early as
possible. At the same time, directions are issued to the Director
General of Police, Jaipur to look into the matter and pass an
appropriate instructions to the Nodal Officer as appointed by him
in accordance with the directions passed by this court in Ganesh
Ram's case (supra) to ensure the attendance of the police officials
before the trial court as and when they are summoned to adduce
evidence before the trial court.
Let a copy of this order be directly sent to the concerned trial
Court as well as the Director General of Police, Jaipur for
compliance as aforesaid.
With these observations, the instant bail application is
disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
SANDEEP RAWAT /23/08
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
