Shanker Lal and Another vs The State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—The petitioners who are accused of offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC have moved this third application for bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C.

It was pointed out on the earlier occasions in this bail application that progress of the matter in trial was held up essentially because the charges against the principal accused persons namely, Ashok Jadeja, Smt. Neetu Jadeja, Shaitan Singh and Surta @ Bhutta were to be framed and they were not being produced before the Court for having been detained in custody in the State of Gujarat.

While considering this third bail application, on 22.07.2010, this Court noticed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that merely because the other accused persons were not produced before the Court for the reason that were said to be in custody in the State of Gujarat, there was no justification for detention of the petitioners in custody for indefinite time. It was also pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that they moved an application for appropriate orders for separate trial particularly when the charges had already been framed against them but this application was also kept pending with repeated adjournments to the Public Prosecutor. While expecting the Trial Court to take up the application seeking separate trial expeditiously for appropriate orders, consideration of this third bail application was deferred to 29.07.2010.

After hearing the parties on 29.07.2010, an order was passed by this Court in this third bail application on 30.07.2010. The consideration of this third bail application was further deferred until this date after noticing the fact that though the Trial Court refused to order separate trial by its order dated 28.07.2010 but, at the same time, issued positive and mandatory directions in relation to the aforesaid other accused persons for their production on 10.08.2010.

While observing that unnecessary delay of trial could not be appreciated, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the order passed by the learned Trial Court, consideration of this third bail application was deferred to this date while extending another opportunity to the Authorities concerned to ensure appropriate steps and doing the needful for expeditious trial.

Today, it has been pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the aforesaid accused persons were indeed produced before the learned Trial Court on 10.08.2010 and charges were framed in their relation; and that the case has now been fixed for prosecution evidence on 21.08.2010. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has, however, strenuously pressed on the bail plea of the petitioners with the submissions that they are in custody for over one year and two months and there is no reason or justification that they be detained in custody further. While placing strong reliance on the directions issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of R.D. Upadhyay v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. 1996 (1) Crimes 189 (SC), the learned Counsel submits that the Hon''ble Apex Court has recognised the right of speedy trial as being guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and has issued directions for release of under-trials who had spent the period ranging from 1 year to 11 years in custody. The learned Counsel particularly refers to the directions of the Hon''ble Apex Court for release on bail of the persons facing trial for cases like cheating and who were in jail for a period for more than 1 year. The learned Counsel submits that the case against the present petitioners is rather of uncertain nature and no cogent evidence is available against them and then, they are in custody for more than 1 year and they deserve to be enlarged on bail. The learned Counsel further submits that to his information the Presiding Officer concerned has been transferred. The learned Counsel yet further submits that to his information the said principal accused persons have not signed the charge as pronounced by the Trial Court for the reason that they were not supplied the copies of the charge-sheet. According to the learned Counsel, there is a very little likelihood of the trial progressing further and evidence being recorded on the next date and in the totality of the circumstances, the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail.

From the material as placed on the record of this bail application and from the orders as passed in this bail application and the further proceedings as stated today before the Court, this much is apparent that the Authorities concerned did take the steps for producing the principal accused persons before the Trial Court for further progress of the matter only after the Trial Court and then this Court passed rather stricter orders. The matter has otherwise been delayed unnecessarily.

However, the facts and circumstances of this case as stated in the charge-sheet and then, the factor that the petitioners are charged also of the offence u/s 120B IPC and alleged to be the part of the larger conspiracy as suggested, this Court is unable to find the present one to be of such case of charge u/s 420, 406 IPC simplicitor so as to consider granting the petitioners bail with reference to the length of time taken. But and however, even when this Court is not inclined to order granting bail to the petitioners at this stage, the necessity of expeditious trial cannot be gainsaid. How the principal accused persons are to be produced and how the trial is to progress, is for the Authorities concerned to ensure by taking appropriate and adequate steps.

In the circumstances of the case, even while rejecting this third bail application at this stage, it is considered appropriate and hence observed that a copy of this order shall also be forwarded to the concerned Sessions Judge who shall ensure that the trial of the case is not hampered or hindered and is taken up with utmost expedition. It is also made clear that if the progress of the trial is not made or is hindered on the ensuing date/dates, in that event it shall be permissible for the petitioners to apply for bail afresh before the Trial Court concerned and such bail application shall be considered on its own merits irrespective of rejection of the bail applications by this Court.

With the observations aforesaid, this third bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the petitioners Shankar Lal s/o Vija Ram and Prakash s/o Shankar Lal stands rejected at this stage.