Punam Chand vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 1812 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1812 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 February, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Punam Chand vs State on 4 February, 2022

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 16884/2021

Punam Chand S/o Lt. Hanuman Singh, Aged About 41 Years, Jasarasar, Teh. Nokha, Dist. Bikaner. Presently Residing At Muktaprasad Nagar, Bikaner. (In Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Bikaner).

----Petitioner Versus State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP Ms. Priyanka Borana, for the complainant through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

04/02/2022 Lawyers are not physically appearing in the Court in view of

the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to

pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

The present third bail application has been filed under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody

in connection with C.R. No.59/2014, Police Station Pugal, District

Bikaner for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323,

307, 302 IPC and Section 3/25, 27 Arms Act.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material

available on record.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is facing incarceration for almost 08 years and trial has

(2 of 4) [CRLMB-16884/2021]

yet not been concluded. Learned Senior counsel further submits

that despite number of opportunities having been granted to the

prosecution witness Bhupendra, his testimony has not been

concluded. Learned Senior counsel also submits the petitioner

cannot be kept behind the bars for years together in the wake of

the situation that trial is being faced by him under Section 302 of

the I.P.C. Learned Senior counsel submits that in the case of

Union of India V/s K. A. Najeeb (Criminal Appeal

No.98/2021 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)

No.11616/2019] Decided on 01.02.2021), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has enlarged the accused on bail on the ground

that the trial is not likely to be completed in a short duration and

the petitioner had already suffered incarceration for more than 05

years. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the co-

accused Gauri Shankar, Mohan Lal, Keshar Devi and Kasturi Devi

have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. Learned Senior

counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the petitioner

may be enlarged on bail and whatever the consequences of the

trial will be, he will face the same. Learned Senior counsel further

submits that there is no antecedent of the petitioner having been

involved in any other case. It is, therefore, prayed that the

petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to controvert

the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the

petitioner and the fact of the petitioner having suffered

incarceration for almost 08 years is not disputed.

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently

opposed the bail application.

(3 of 4) [CRLMB-16884/2021]

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the requisite documents placed before this Court. The fact

that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for almost 08 years

is not disputed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union

of India V/s K. A. Najeeb(Supra) held as under :-

"14. We may also refer to the orders enlarging similarly-situated accused under the UAPA passed by this Court in Angela Harish Sontakke V. State of Maharashtra. That was also a case under Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 21, 38, 39 and 40(2) of the UAPA. This Court in its earnest effort to draw balance between the seriousness of the charges with the period of custody suffered and the likely period within which the trial could be expected to be completed took note of the five years' incarceration and over 200 witnesses left to be examined, and thus granted bail to the accused notwithstanding Section 43D(5) of UAPA. Similarly, in Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe V. State of Maharashtra, an accused under the UAPA was enlarged for he had been in jail for four years and there were over 147 witnesses still unexamined.

19. Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondents are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail. An attempt has been made to strike a balance between the appellant's right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously the respondent's rights guaranteed under Part III of our Constitution have been well protected."

Learned counsel has also relied upon other judgments on the

point which can be gainfully taken note of are :-

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-16884/2021]

(1). Paras Ram Vishnoi V/s. The Director, Central Bureau

of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No.693/2021 [Arising out of

S.L.P. (Crl.)No.3610/2020] decided on 27.07.2021) and

(2) Angela Harish Sontakke V/s State of Maharashtra

(Criminal Appeal No.440/2016 [Arising out of Special Leave

Petition (Criminal)No.6888/2015] decided on 04.05.2016]).

In view of the detailed discussions made above, this Court is

of the considered view that the petitioner has suffered

incarceration for almost 08 years and the trial is not likely to be