Mangilal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 11425 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 7098/2022

Mangilal S/o Shri Motiram, Aged About 35 Years, B/c Bishnoi R/o Dhingsara PS Sadar Nagaur Dist. Nagaur Raj.

(Petitioner Is Lodged In Dist. Jail Nagaur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranjeet Joshi with Mr. Kapil Bissa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

14/09/2022

The present third bail application has been filed under

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

connection with F.I.R. No.107/2015, Police Station Khinvsar,

District Nagaur, for the offence under Sections 302 of IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second

bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 12.10.2020 with

direction to the trial court to expedite the trial proceedings and

conclude the same at the earliest. However, out of enlisted 23

witnesses, only 9 witnesses have been examined so far. He

submits that the petitioner is facing incarceration since

(2 of 4) [CRLMB-7098/2022]

17.07.2015 and has undergone more than 7 years of

imprisonment.

Learned counsel further submits that in 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. He further submits that present petitioner is not involved in

any other case as there are no antecedent reports showing his

involvement in any other criminal activity. He therefore, prays that

the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to controvert

the fact that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more

than 7 years and only 9 witnesses have been examined so far. He

submits that except the case in hand, there is no other case which

is pending consideration against the present petitioner.

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 23 witnesses, only 9 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

(3 of 4) [CRLMB-7098/2022]

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 :-

(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]).

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, and considering

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-7098/2022]

the fact that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more

than more than 7 years and the trial is not likely to be concluded

shortly, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by

the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

Consequently, the present third bail application filed under

Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-

petitioner Mangilal S/o Shri Motiram arrested in connection

with F.I.R. No.107/2015, Police Station Khinvsar, District Nagaur

shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees : Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the

satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear

before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called

upon to do so.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 50-/Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)