Rajasthan High Court
Sitaram S/O Shri Gangajalram vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 September, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
6065/2022
Sitaram S/o Shri Gangajalram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward
No. 3 Damerabas Ridi Shri Dungargarh Bikaner Rajasthan
(Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In Central Jail Ajmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shweta Soni for Mr. Manish Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
29/09/2022
1. Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section
439 Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No.58/2019 was registered at Police Station Shrinagar,
Ajmer for offence under Sections 8/15 of NDPS Act.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has remained in custody for a period of three years and
four months. Out of list of ten witnesses, only one witness has
been examined. It is also contended that in the statement of
Seizure Officer, he has not mentioned with regard to drawing of
samples.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on "Abdul
Majeed Lone Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir"
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3961/2022 decided
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-6065/2022]
by the Apex Court on 01.08.2022, wherein considering the
incarceration for a period of two years and five months, bail was
granted to the accused. Reliance has also been placed on "Amit
Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh" Criminal Appeal
No. 668/2020, decided by the Apex Court on 12.10.2020, wherein
bail was granted to the accused who had remained in custody for
a period of two years and seven months. Reliance has also been
placed on "Tapan Das Vs. Union of India" Petition for Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5617/2021, decided by the Apex Court
on 07.10.2021, wherein the accused was granted bail who had
remained in custody for a period of four years and there was no
likelihood of completion of trial in near future.
5. This Court has also granted bail to the accused in S.B.
Criminal Misc. Fourth Bail Application No.15204/2020, order
dated 23.02.2021, wherein the accused had remained in custody
for a period of four years and out of seventeen witnesses, only
one witness had been examined.
6. Reliance has also been placed on "Ghanshyam Sharma Vs.
The State of Rajasthan" Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No(s).5397/2019, decided by the Apex Court on
10.01.2020, where at the stage of defence evidence, bail was
granted to the accused.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail
application. It is contended that the matter pertains to commercial
quantity.
8. I have considered the contentions.
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-6065/2022]
9. The Apex Court in "Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab"
has extended the benefit of bail where custody period of accused
was more than two years. In "Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh" (supra) benefit of bail was given to the
accused where custody period was two years and seven months.
In "Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan" (supra)
bail was granted to the accused where the matter was fixed for
defence evidence and in "Abdul Majeed Lone Vs Union
Territory of Jammu and Kashmir" (supra) bail was granted to
the accused as accused had suffered incarceration for a period of
two yeas and five months. In "Tapan Das Vs. Union of India"
(supra) bail was granted to the accused where custody period was
around four years.
10. In the present case in hand, accused has remained in
custody for a period of three years and four months and
statement of only one witness has been recorded out of ten
witnesses, which clearly points out that trial will not be concluded
in near future. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Apex
Court as also taking note of the custody period and the fact that
trial will not conclude in near future, this Court deems it proper to
allow the second bail application.
11. This second 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
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-6065/2022]
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.
12. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner repeats the
offence, State would be free to move application for cancellation
of bail before the concerned Court.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
ARTI SHARMA / 28
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
