Harpreet Singh And Others vs State Of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Mathur, J

These 2nd bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.344/2018 registered at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, for offences under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first bail application filed by the petitioners was rejected by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 23.02.2022. Learned counsel submitted that after rejection of first bail application, statement of only one prosecution witness has been recorded by the learned trial court. Learned counsel further submitted that out of 26 prosecution witnesses, statements of only 4 prosecution witnesses have been recorded till date. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the petitioner is facing incarceration since 06.11.2018.

Drawing attention of the Court towards the impugned order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in conducting trial cannot be attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that with the pace at which the trial is being conducted, the chances of the same being completed in near future is unlikely. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has faced incarceration of about five years already. Learned counsel submitted that Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in 2021 (3) SCC 713, while dealing with the cases where fetters are placed on Court’s power to grant bail and where the trial has not been completed within reasonable time, 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.”

Learned counsel placed reliance on the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Kumar Bishnoi Vs. State of Jharkhand in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 11614/2022 and submitted that undule delay in conducting of trial by prosecution witnesses in trial, adversely affects the right of the accused for a speedy trial. In view of the above fact that the statements of only 4 out of 26 prosecution witnesses have been recorded till date and that the petitioner has faced a prolonged incarceration, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. Learned Public prosecutor however, was not in position to dispute the fact that in five years out of 26 prosecution witnesses only 4 have been examined so far. Leaned Public Prosecutor was also not in a position to dispute the fact that despite repeated orders/summons by the competent trial court, the prosecution witnesses have failed to appear for recording of statements.

Heard.

Indisputably, the petitioners are in incarceration since 06.11.2018. The speed at which the trial is being conducted shows that there is no likelihood of it being completed within a reasonable period. The delay in conducting of trial for no fault of the petitioners has adversely affected.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, the custody period of the petitioner,s without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the 2nd bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted.

Consequently, the 2nd bail applications filed by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners- (1). Harpreet Singh S/o Avatar Singh, (2). Ajay Pal Singh S/o Amreek Singh and (3).Harpreet Singh S/o Avtar Singh, shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.344/2018 registered at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.