Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under section 439 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 16.12.2011 passed by Sessions Judge Jaipur District Jaipur rejecting the bail application of the accused petitioner in FIR No. CBI Case RC 2(s) 2010- SCU. V/ SC-II/ CBI New Delhi under sections 120 B IPC read with sections 302, 364, 346, 201 and 218 IPC and substantive offences thereof FIR No. 396 of 2006 of Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur City (East) Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed an order on April 9, 2010 in Special Leave petition (Crl.) No. 3212 of 2008 filed by Smt. Sushila Devi who is wife of late Dara Singh with respect to FIR No. 396/2006 dated 23.10.2006 Police Station Mansarovar in which she had alleged that her husband Dara Singh was killed in a fake encounter by the police officials of Special Operation Group of Jaipur on 23.10.2006. In the petition the wife of deceased Dara Singh prayed that the matter of killing of deceased Dara Singh should be investigated by the CBI. The Apex Court passed the following order : "Heard learned counsel for the parties. On the facts of the case, we direct the CBI to hold an investigation in respect of the offence alleged. The criminal misc. petition is disposed of accordingly. In view of this, no orders need be passed on the applications for impleadment and they are also disposed of." 3. On 23.4.2010 in view of the directions of the Apex Court, the CBI New Delhi registered the FIR No. CBI Case RC 2(S) 2010- SCU, V/ SC-II/ CBI New Delhi under section 120 B read with sections 302, 364, 346, 201 and 218 IPC and substantive offences thereof and investigation was started. Initially four accused persons, who were the parts of the encounter team namely Nisar Khan, Naresh Sharma, Surendra Singh and Satyanarain Godara were arrested on 11.3.2011. Notice under section 160 Cr.P.C. was given to the petitioner by the CBI on 15.5.2011 and the same were also issued to the other co-accused namely A.K.Jain, ADGP, Arshad Ali, Addl. S.P. Only the petitioner appeared before the CBI. During the course of investigation the CBI arrested the accused petitioner on 15.5.2011. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application before the trial court which was dismissed on 16.12.2011. 4. S.P. Only the petitioner appeared before the CBI. During the course of investigation the CBI arrested the accused petitioner on 15.5.2011. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application before the trial court which was dismissed on 16.12.2011. 4. Mr. A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the accused petitioner has contended that the CBI has not investigated the matter fairly and properly and falsely implicated the accused petitioner out of political motive. He has further contended that the co-accused Munshilal, whose case is almost similar to the accused petitioner, has been discharged for the offence under sections 120 B IPC, 302, 367, 346 IPC, while all other accused have been charged for the alleged offence including the accused petitioner. The accused petitioner is in judicial lock up approximately for one year and the CBI has submitted a list of 254 witnesses and only 28 witnesses have been examined that means the trial will go on for atleast another eight or nine years. He has further contended that there is no evidence against the accused petitioner. The accused petitioner was neither the member of encounter team nor he passed any order regarding declaration of award over the deceased Dara Singh. Whole case of the prosecution is based on the suspicion on the ground of location of the cell phone. The learned counsel has argued that the petitioner's location never come in this area where the deceased Dara Singh was said to be kept in secret confinement or even at the encounter sight. He has further contended that the accused petitioner was on leave and was out of headquarter after getting the sanction from the authorities from 19.10.2006 to 22.10.2006 and he returned back to Jaipur only in the evening of 22.10.2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further cited the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 and contended that the accused petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. He has further contended that the petitioner is a responsible citizen and he always cooperated with the CBI in the investigation. He has further drawn the attention of this court that Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya s/o Ranjit Singh is the main incharge of the team of smuggling in wine mafia group, with Dariya and Veer Singh s/o Sahi Ram, members of that team and still they are doing the same business. He has further drawn the attention of this court that Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya s/o Ranjit Singh is the main incharge of the team of smuggling in wine mafia group, with Dariya and Veer Singh s/o Sahi Ram, members of that team and still they are doing the same business. This fact is well known by the CBI. Dariya deceased is a hard criminal and more than 25 cases are pending against him being habitual offender. The CBI himself has investigated the matter and the CBI is duty bound to give information to the police authorities in the Rajasthan but still this information was not supplied to them till today. Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain has drawn attention of this court towards the order dated 8.8.2011 of the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the order dated 8.8.2011 observed as under : “We are surprised that they have not yet been arrested. We direct that no stone be left unturned in arresting these absconding accused persons. Law is above all howsoever high they may be. The Central Bureau of Investigation is directed to arrest these absconding accused persons within one month from today.” Thereafter application was filed before the Apex Court for modification of the order dated 8.8.2011, the Apex Court vide order dated 13.4.2012, rejected the application observing as under : “Status report filed by the CBI is taken on record. The matter be listed after four weeks. On that day the investigating agency may inform the Court regarding the progress of the case. So far as the intervention and unregistered application for modification/clarification of order dated 8.8.2011, are concerned, we are not inclined to entertain either of the same. However, any person who has been arrested in connection with this case, if wants to move any application for any relief including bail etc, he may approach the appropriate court for seeking the appropriate relief and in case any such application is filed, the concerned court is requested to decide the said application strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation/direction made by this Court or the High Court earlier in respect of investigation etc. Crl. MP. No.20916/2011 and unregistered application for modification in SLP (Crl) No.3212 of 2008 stand disposed of accordingly.” Mr. Crl. MP. No.20916/2011 and unregistered application for modification in SLP (Crl) No.3212 of 2008 stand disposed of accordingly.” Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, has further contended that the the role of the then Home Secretary V.S. Singh, Ajit Singh Shekhawat, Inspector General of Police, A.S. Gill, Director General of Police Rajasthan and Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station, is approximiately similar to the role assigned to the accused petitioner, but they have implicated these persons as witnesses and the petitioner has been made accused. The accused petitioner should also be implicated as witness like these persons, whose role is similar to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI has drawn attention of this court that the Dara Singh was murdered in cold blood by the members of the SOG Jaipur Rajasthan in a stage mana-ged encounter in the early morning of 23.10.2006 in the area of Police Station, Mansarover, Jaipur. He has further contended that during the course of the investigation involvement of the accused Ayyanu Ponnuchamy, who was SP Incharge SOG Jaipur with the team members of SOG and others has surfaced in murdering Dara Singh in a fake and stage managed encounter in the outskirts of Jaipur in the early morning of 23.10.2006 by SOG team. It has been established by the investigation that in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy movement of Dara Singh was reported to senior officer who were also monitoring the ways to eliminate Dara Singh. Charge sheet has been filed in this case on 3.6.2011 in the court of ACJM (SPE cases) Jaipur against the accu-sed petitioner and others. Charges have been framed in the case on 25.8.2011 by the Sessions Judge Jaipur District Jaipur under Sec. 120B read with Secs. 302, 364, 346, 218 and 193 IPC against the accused petitioner. The trial court so far recorded the statement of 28 witnesses and the next date is fixed today i.e. 27.4.2012 for prosecution evidence. He has further contended that on 9.4.2012 the Co-ordinate Bench of this court has already passed an order for expedi-tious trial in this case. He has further contended that the accused petitioner A. Ponnuchamay the then SP SOG Jaipur Rajasthan has played an active role in the criminal conspiracy for the murder of Dara Singh. He has further contended that on 9.4.2012 the Co-ordinate Bench of this court has already passed an order for expedi-tious trial in this case. He has further contended that the accused petitioner A. Ponnuchamay the then SP SOG Jaipur Rajasthan has played an active role in the criminal conspiracy for the murder of Dara Singh. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy he had given illegal orders to his subordinates in SOG who abducted, kept in illegal confinement and subsequently murdered Dara Singh in cold blood giving it the shape of an encounter. He has further contended that he sent letter to the service provider for intercepting the mobile number of deceased Dara Singh. He has supervised the detention and released of Vijay Kumar Chaudhary and taking him to the loop of conspiracy for handing over Dara Singh. During the period of detention and release of Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, accused Arshad Ali was in touch with him and he was in touch with accused Arvind Kumar Jain. He has further contended that the petitioner has remained in touch with the SOG team during the whole operation. Arshad Ali Addl. SP visted his residence before proceeding to Fatehpur for abducting Dara Singh, during the stay of Addl. SP at his residence he was in touch with other team members of SOG who were camping at Fatehpur. Some of the team members including accused Arshad Ali visited his residence in the morning after Dara Singh was kept in illegal confinement. During the stay of the team at his house A. Ponnuchamy contacted A.K. Jain over mobile. He has further contended that there are documentary and oral evidence available against the accused petitioner. The documentary evidence against the accused petitioner is as under : 1. Request letter sent by A.K. Jain to Home Department, Govt. of Rajasthan for interception of mobile number of Dara Singh initialled by accused A. Ponnuchami. 2. Letter sent to Airtel by A. Ponnuchami for intercepition of mobile number of Vijay Chaudhary. 3. Letter sent to BSNL for interception of mobile number of deceased Dara Singh. 4, Call detail records of mobile number 9829052167 of AK Jain and mobile numbers 9414601535, 9829226111 of A. Ponnuchami and mobile numbers 9829200195 & 9414601798 of Arshad Ali, Addl. SP, other team members of SOG and Vijay Kumar Chaudhary. 5. Letter No. 3043-44 dated 25.10.2006 of SP, SOG, Jaipur 6. 4, Call detail records of mobile number 9829052167 of AK Jain and mobile numbers 9414601535, 9829226111 of A. Ponnuchami and mobile numbers 9829200195 & 9414601798 of Arshad Ali, Addl. SP, other team members of SOG and Vijay Kumar Chaudhary. 5. Letter No. 3043-44 dated 25.10.2006 of SP, SOG, Jaipur 6. Letter dated 11.8.2011 of Nodal Officer of Airtel Rajasthan alongwith annexure J showing address of subscriber of mobile No. 9829226111. The Oral evidence against A.Ponnuchami, accused petitioner has also been pointed out by the Special Public Prosecutor to this court. Besides this there is evidence of electronic footprints. It was pointed out that during the course of investigation it has been established that at the relevant time A. Ponnuchamy, accused petitioner was using mobile numbers 9829226111 and 9414061535 and coordinating the whole operation of SOG. Electronic footprints clearly falsify the claim of the accused petitioner that he was out of Jaipur from 20.10.2006 to 22.10.2006. Details of relevant conversations were shown to the court also. In these circumstances it was prayed that the accused petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, requested to the court that the powers should always be used for constructive purposes and not for destructive purposes. 6. I have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the accused petitioner and Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, special Public Prosecutor along with B.S. Chauhan and Mr. Vijay Singh for the CBI and has also perused the material made available to the court for perusal. 7. The Apex Court in paras 40, 41, 42 and 43 in Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 held as under: 40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. 41. This Court in Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41 : AIR 1978 SC 179 observed that two paramount considerations, while considering a petition for grant of bail in a non-bailable offence, apart from the seriousness of the offence, are the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with the prosecution witnesses. Both of them relate to ensure the fair trial of the case. Though, this aspect is dealt by the High Court in its impugned order, in our view, the same is not convincing. 42. When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question is: whether the same is possible in the present case. 43. There are seventeen accused persons. Statements of witnesses run to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, are voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that the accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that the accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet." 8. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet." 8. The Sessions Judge Jaipur District Jaipur in its detailed order dated December 16, 2011 while rejecting the bail application of the accused petitioner observed as under : ^^vuqla/kku ds nkSjku lh-ch-vkbZ- }kjk xokgku~ ds dFku ys[kc) fd;s x;s] fo'ks"kKksa dh jk; yh xbZ] SOG ds lHkh lnL;ksa ds eksckbZy VkWoj laca/kh fjdkMZ izkIr fd;s x;s ,oa ?kVuk ds le; mudh fdl eksckbZy VkWoj ds vUrxZr mifLFkfr Fkh] bl laca/k esa tkudkjh izkIr dh xbZA lh-ch-vkbZ- }kjk vuqla/kku ls bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk x;k gS fd SOG ,oa vU; O;fä;ksa }kjk nkjkflag dh gR;k eux<+ar eqBHksM+ fn[kkdj dh xbZ rFkk bl "kM;a= ds vUrxZr SOG ds lnL;ksa }kjk ;g eqBHksM+ cuk;h xbZ] ftlds vUrxZr nkjkflag dks eqBHksM+ ds nkSjku xksfy;ka yxus ls e`R;q gksuk n'kkZ;k x;k gSA vUos"k.k ds nkSjku izkFkhZ@vfHk;qä dks fxjrkj dj vfHkj{kk esa fy;k x;k rFkk v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k vfHk;ksxi= izLqr fd;k x;kA tks dfeV gksdj bl U;k;ky; esa izkIr gksus ij vUoh{kk dh dk;Zokgh fopkjk/khu gSA 4- cgl lquh xbZA fo}ku vf/koäk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qä dk rdZ gS fd mls >waBk Qalk;k x;k gS] mldk dksbZ —R; ugha crk;k x;k gS] og U;kf;d dkQh fnuksa ls vfHkj{kk esa gS] izkFkhZ }kjk izkjEHk ls gh vuqla/kku esa iw.kZ lg;ksx fd;k x;k gS] izdj.k esa 250 ls vf/kd xokg gS] fopkj.k esa le; yxsxk] blfy, izkFkhZ dks tekur ij fjgk fd;k tkosA 5- fo}ku fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk izkFkZuk i= dk fojks/k fd;k x;k gS ,oa mudk ;g dFku gSfd tks vkjksi fojfpr fd;s x;s gS muesa /kkjk 120ch Hkk-na-la- dk vkjksi izkFkhZ ds fo:) yxk;k x;k gS] vf/kdka'k xokgku~ }kjk izkFkhZ ds fo:) lk{; nh xbZ gS rFkk izkFkhZ dk —R; ?kVuk esa vge jgk gS] blfy, mls tekur ij fjgk ugha fd;k tkosA 6- i=koyh ds voyksdu ls izdV gksrk gS fd bl izdj.k esa SOG ds lnL; ,oa vf/kdkjhx.k }kjk nkjkflag dh gR;k djus ds mís'; ls vkijkf/kd "kM+;a= jpus rFkk mldh gR;k djuk crk;k gSA iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ ,oa fo'ks"kKksa dh jk; ds vk/kkj ij Hkh dfFkr eqBHksM+ dks QthZ gksuk crk;k gSA U;k;ky; }kjk cgl vkjksi lquus ds i'pkr~ izkFkhZ@vfHk;qä ,oa vU; vfHk;qäx.k ds e/; nqjfHklaf/k rFkk eqBHksM+ dks QthZ crkrs gq, nkjkflag dh gR;k fd;s tkus ds vkjksi fojfpr fd;s x;s gSA izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ fopkj O;ä fd;s fcuk izkFkhZ@vfHk;qä dks tekur ij NksM+k tkuk U;k;laxr ugha gSA** 9. I have gone through the order of the Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the accused petitioner in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra's case (supra). I am in agreement with the order passed by the Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the accused petitioner. There is enough material against the accused petitioner in the instant case. In the instant matter, the prosecution has already produced 28 prosecution witnesses and even today also the matter is fixed up before the trial court for recording the evidence of the prosecution. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already directed for recording of evidence of the prosecution on day to day basis for early expediting the trial. 10. We have also called Mr. G.S. Bapna, Advocate General of the State of Rajasthan along with Mr. Peeyush Kumar and Mr. Pradeep Shrimal, Public Prosecutors of the State of Rajasthan that still the business of the Mafia gang of wine smuggling is going on, whose head is Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya son of Ranjit Singh, resident of village Maloo Ki Dhani, PS, Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu and Veer Singh son of Sahi Ram resident of village Chilana Bas, Post Lakhlan Badi, Tehsil Rajgarh Distt. Churu, is its member. This fact was also disclosed by the CBI investigating team member Mr. Subhash Kundu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Jaipur. Subhash Kundu has disclosed that Head of the Mafia Group of smuggling of wine Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya and his member Veer Singh s/o Sahiram, who are habitual offenders of the area in Rajasthan, are still continuing their business in the area but the State Government is not taking any action against these persons. In order to keep peace in the State of Rajasthan we have called the Advocate General of Rajasthan that the activities of Mafia group of smuggling of wine is still going on in the State of Rajasthan and such an illegal activities are to be curbed by the State of Rajasthan if such an information is supplied by the CBI. It is the duty of the officials in the State of Rajasthan to curb the illegal activities and keep peace in State of Rajasthan by adopting appropriate measures to book these criminal offenders like Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya s/o Ranjit Singh and Veer Singh s/o Sahi Ram. Mr. It is the duty of the officials in the State of Rajasthan to curb the illegal activities and keep peace in State of Rajasthan by adopting appropriate measures to book these criminal offenders like Vijendra Singh @ Teeliya s/o Ranjit Singh and Veer Singh s/o Sahi Ram. Mr. Subhash Kundu, Deputy Superintendent of Police CBI, at this stage when the judgment of this bail application was dictated stated that today he will write a detailed letter regarding the criminal activities in the area in State of Rajasthan to the Home Secretary of the State for taking action against such criminals in accordance with law and the copy of the said letter will also be given to the Advocate General, and it is expected from the State Government that they shall take action in accordance with law against the mafia group of smuggling wine. 11. Mr. A.K. Jain, counsel for the accused petitioner requested to this court that the direction should be given to the trial court to record the statements of the material witnesses first and thereafter liberty should be given to him to move bail application on behalf of the accused petitioner before the trial court. It is expected from the CBI to submit the prosecution witnesses who are material first before the trial court and there is no need to pass any order for expediting the trial if possible on day day basis as already directed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court. However at this stage I further direct the trial court to comply with the order of the coordiante Bench of this court dated 9.4.2012 if possible on day to day basis. 12. In the facts and circumstances of this case, order of the Sessions Judge and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra's case (supra) without commenting on the merits of the case, at this stage, I do not think it proper to accept the bail application of the accused petitioner and the same is hereby dismissed. But at the same time I direct to the trial court to comply with the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 9.4.2012 strictly. 13. The petitioner is free to move bail application before the trial court after recording of the statement of the all important and material witnesses which CBI deems fit and proper. But at the same time I direct to the trial court to comply with the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 9.4.2012 strictly. 13. The petitioner is free to move bail application before the trial court after recording of the statement of the all important and material witnesses which CBI deems fit and proper. The Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this court is directed to supply copy of this order free of cost to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Principal Home Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan, Director General of Police, Govt. of Rajasthan, Advocate General of State of Rajasthan and the Deputy Inspector General of Police CBI immediately.