Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramesh Chandra Bishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 May, 2023
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2023/RJJD/016863]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2471/2023
Ramesh Chandra Bishnoi S/o Bagdu Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Bhakari, Police Station Lohawat, District Jodhpur. (At
Present Lodged In District Jail, Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kailash Chandra Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
23/05/2023
This fourth application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection
with FIR No.21/2019 registered at Police Station Karoi, District
Bhilwara, for offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per
prosecution story, the police seized contraband (poppy straw)
weighing 158kg 900 gms from a vehicle driven by the present
petitioner on 02.03.2019.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial
custody since 02.03.2019. Learned counsel submitted that in last
four years, only one prosecution witness out of thirty-two
prosecution witnesses has been examined. Learned counsel
submitted that Investigating Officer Suman (P.W.2) is not turning
up for cross examination since 05.03.2020. learned counsel
[2023/RJJD/016863] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2471/2023]
submitted that the delay in conducting the trial is not at all
attributable to the present petitioner. Drawing attention of the
Court towards the order sheets of the trial court, learned counsel
submitted that despite various orders/summons issued by the trial
court, P.W.2 has not turned up to depose before the trial court.
Learned counsel submitted that a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court while deciding third bail application of the present petitioner
being S.B. Crl. Misc. 3 rd Bail Application 8133/2022 vide order
dated 22.07.2022, directed the trial court to call all material
witnesses on consecutive dates and conclude the trial
expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that looking to the speed
at which trial is going on, the same is not likely to be completed in
near future despite directions of this Court, therefore, the benefit
of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A.
Najeeb reported in 2021(3) SCC 173. The relevant portion of
the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below for ready reference:
"17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of
statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA
per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional
courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part -
III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions
under a statute as well as the powers exercisable
under constitutional jurisdiction can be well
harmonised. Whereas at commencement of
proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate
the legislative policy against grant of bail but th
[2023/RJJD/016863] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2471/2023]
rigours of such provisions will melt down where there
is no likelihood of trial being completed within a
reasonable time and the period of incarceration
already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of
the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would
safeguard against the possibility of provisions like
Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole
metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of
constitutional right to speedy trial."
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application and submitted that the petitioner is facing trial for
offences under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the present bail
application deserves to be rejected straightaway. However, he was
not in position to dispute the fact that P.W.2 has not turned up for
deposing before the trial court since 05.03.2020.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
From the perusal of the order-sheets of the competent
criminal court/trial court, it is evident that prosecution witness has
not turned up for deposing before the trial court since 05.03.2020.
Due to non appearance of prosecution witness before trial court,
the trial is moving at a snail's pace and is not likely to be
completed in near future, for no fault on the part of the petitioner.
This court also finds that co-accused Ramkishore (S.B. Crl.
Misc. Bail Application No.283/2021), Megharam (S.B. Crl. Misc.
Bail Application No.8068/2020) and Mahipal Vishnoi (S.B. Crl.
Misc. Bail Application No.7482/2021) have already been enlarged
on bail by this Court.
[2023/RJJD/016863] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2471/2023]
In view of aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the bail
application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
Accordingly, the fourth bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner-
Ramesh Chandra Bishnoi S/o Bagdu Ram Bishnoi shall be
enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.21/2019 registered at
Police Station Karoi, District Bhilwara, provided he furnishes a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of
Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for
his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of
hearing as and when called upon to so.
It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
/tarun goyal/
Sr.No.336
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
