Dalpat Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1158 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1158 Raj
Judgement Date : 25 January, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Dalpat Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 January, 2022

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 1257/2021

Dalpat Singh S/o Ran Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. Ketpal Ka Guda, Khamnor, District Rajsamand (Raj.). (Presently Lodged At Central Jail Udaipur).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Jagdish Singh, Ms. Priyanka Borana, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. K. Bhati, PP Mr. Nishant Bora, for the complainant, through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

25/01/2022 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 second bail application has been filed under

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

in connection with F.I.R. No.125/2014, Police Station Bhupalpura,

District Udaipur for the offences under Sections 302, 302/34,

307/34, 120-B & 449/34 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 7/25 &

8/25(B)(C) of Arms Act.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material

available on record.

(2 of 5) [CRLMSB-1257/2021]

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the

first bail application of the petitioner was disposed of by this Court

on 12.02.2020. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner is facing incarceration for more than 07 years

and out of 75 witnesses, only 31 witnesses have been examined

so far. He further submits that there is no possibility of the

completion of the trial proceedings of the present case in near

future. 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 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 and in the cases which are reported against him, he has been

acquitted by the competent courts. 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

(3 of 5) [CRLMSB-1257/2021]

incarceration for more than 07 years is not disputed. On the

strength of the report submitted by the S.H.O., Police Staion

Bhupalpura, District Udaipur dated 03.01.2022, he submits that

except the case in hand, there is no other case which is pending

against the present petitioner.

Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail

application.

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 more than 07

years is not disputed and out of 75 witnesses, only 31 witnesses

have been examined till date. 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

(4 of 5) [CRLMSB-1257/2021]

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 :-

(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 more than 07 years and the trial is not likely to

be concluded shortly, as also the present situation of the country