Vishal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:41383)
2024 Latest Caselaw 8856 Raj

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 8856 Raj
Judgement Date : 9 October, 2024

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vishal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:41383) on 9 October, 2024

Author: Manoj Kumar Garg

Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg

[2024:RJ-JD:41383]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
   S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10986/2024

Vishal S/o Shivratan, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Sanjay Nagar,
Phalodi, P.s. Phalodi, Dist. Jodhpur,raj. (At Present Lodged In
Dist. Jail, Phalodi)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Mudit Vaishnava
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

09/10/2024

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR

No.192/2021 of Police Station Phalodi for the offence punishable

under Sections 8/22, 29 of NDPS Act. He has preferred this third

bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner

is inside the jail since 19.05.2021 and till date, no witness has

been examined before the trial court and the trial is yet pending.

A progress report has also been received from the trial court,

which also shows that due to some or other reason, the witnesses

did not turn up for their evidence. Further, there is no other

criminal antecedents against the petitioner.

In support of his contentions, 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

713, in which, while dealing with the cases where fetters are

[2024:RJ-JD:41383] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10986/2024]

placed on Court's power to grant bail and the trial has not been

completed within a reasonable time, it has been observed as

under:

"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 the 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."

A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Vyas

vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application

No.14958/2022), vide order dated 17.03.2023, also observed as

follows:

"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3961/2022], Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.668/2020), Tapan Das Vs. Union of India [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5617/2021], Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5187/2019], Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5397/2019], Nadeem Vs. State of UP [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.1524/2022] and Mukesh Vs. The State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4089/2021] has granted bail to the accused persons, against whom the allegations are of transporting or possessing narcotic contraband

[2024:RJ-JD:41383] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-10986/2024]

above commercial quantity, on the ground of custody period and taking into consideration the fact that the trial against the said accused persons will take time in completion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered for release of the accused persons who were in custody from two years to four years. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this fifth bail application solely on the ground of custody period of the accused petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the trial against him has not been completed till date.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this third bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Umesh Vyas S/o Shri Ganeshlal Ji shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.15/2019 of Police Station Charbhuja, District Rajsamand provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial."

The petitioner is inside the jail for about three years and the

trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Therefore, the

benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the

prayer for bail made by the counsel for the petitioner.

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and

gone through the progress report as well as material available on

record.

It is not disputed that the accused petitioner has so far

suffered incarceration of more than three years and the trial is still

going on, therefore, looking to the prolonged custody of the

petitioner, it would be appropriate to grant benefit of bail to the