Mod Singh @ Mahendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan

Accused-petitioner, facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 392/34, 201/34 IPC, in Sessions Case No.40/16, pending before Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhinmal (for short, 'learned trial Court'), has laid this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid sessions case is founded on FIR No.03/16, registered at Police Station Bhinmal, District Jalore.

The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as not pressed on 2nd of February, 2017. Later on, while considering petitioner's second bail application, the same is declined by order dated 16.04.2018. However, it was observed that the learned trial Court is expected to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible.

Arguing on this third bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel that despite directions of the Court, trial has not materially progressed inasmuch as out of 24 prosecution witnesses, so far only 15 witnesses are examined. In support of his contention, learned counsel has also relied on the ordersheets of the learned trial Court. It is further submitted by learned counsel that there is no recovery of any weapon of offence upon disclosure of the petitioner during investigation. Learned counsel would contend that the prosecution evidence so far recorded is not inculpatory vis-a-vis the petitioner and therefore his bail plea merits favourable consideration.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecution submits that keeping in view serious delinquencies attributed to the petitioner, he is not entitled for grant of bail. It is also argued by learned Public Prosecutor that after rejection of second bail application there is no change much less substantial change in the circumstances.

I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and also perused order dated 27th of June, 2019 passed by learned trial Court.

From a perusal of the order dated 27.06.2018 passed by the learned trial Court, it is abundantly clear that on the date of order 16 witnesses had already been examined by the prosecution. Since then almost three months have passed, therefore, there is every likelihood that some more witnesses might have been examined by the learned trial Court. The contention of the learned counsel that there is no material progress despite directions of the Court is also an ambitious plea because after 16th of April, 2018 learned trial Court has recorded statements of almost 10 witnesses. Therefore, considering the seriousness of charges levelled against the petitioner and sans substantial change in the circumstances after rejection of second bail application, I feel disinclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioner on his third bail application.

Consequently, third bail application is rejected.

It is needless to observe here that in adherence of the earlier order, learned trial Court would make sincere endeavour to conclude the trial as early as possible.