JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioner in FIR No. 148/96 under sections 302, 307, 120B IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substance Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the P.D.P.P. Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a parcha bayan of Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, Conductor of the Bus No. RJ 07 P 1038 of Rajasthan Roadway recorded on 22.5.96 at 4. p.m. in the Govt. Hospital, Mahuwa, an FIR No. 148/96 was registered at Police Station, Mahuwa wherein it was stated that the bus was coming from Agra to Bikaner on 22.5.96 carrying about 49-50 passengers. Two passengers were sitting on seat nos. 22 and 23 but they got down at Mahuwa and returned their two tickets to him saying that some poor persons may be obliged. The bus proceeded from Mahuwa to Dausa and after covering 3-4 km. near Samleti village a big blast happened in which the whole bus was damaged and 14 passengers died and almost all the passengers were injured. On this Parcha Bayan FIR No. 148/96 for offence under sections 302, 307, 120 B IPC and sections 4,5 of Explosive Substance Act and Sections 3,4 of P.D.P.P. Act was registered and the investigation was handed over to the Additional S.P. Dausa and the matter was also investigated by the CID (CB). In the initial investigation it was revealed that responsibility of the Bomb Blast has been taken by JKLF of the Kashmir State and some Kashmiri persons were arrested but there was no evidence against the petitioner whatsoever which could involve his participation in the blast. Three charge sheets were field earlier and seven persons were arrested who have also not stated anything about the petitioner's involvement in the case. Three charge sheets were field earlier and seven persons were arrested who have also not stated anything about the petitioner's involvement in the case. In the fourth challan submitted on 20.9.97 before the CJM Dausa, in para 11 it has been mentioned that till 6/97 the police could not get any information of the involvement of the petitioner in this case but it is said that one letter from Jaipur was posted by some anonymous person to CID (CB) and in this letter the name of the petitioner along with Raees Baig Tailor (Agra) and Pappu Puncture Wala ( Gordhan ) were mentioned and on the basis of anonymous letter petitioner was arrested not only in the present case but also in the blast case of SMS Stadium Jaipur in FIR No. 39/96. The said letter has been written in Urdu script and it was important to note that police does not have any other clue except this letter to implead the petitioner in these two Bomb Blast cases. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this blast case. Co-accused Pappu @ Salim son of Shakir was made as approver under section 306 (1) Cr.P.C. Upon this the petitioner filed an application under section 306(4) Cr.P.C. which was allowed vide order dated 30.11.2010 and the matter had been fixed for framing of the charge for arguments on 8.12.2011. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in confinement in Central Jail for the last 14 years without trial as the charge is yet to be framed and more than 100 witnesses are to be examined. The petitioner is an intelligent student, who passed out his MBBS in first attempt but on some frivolous letter he has been arrested and falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner in these circumstances filed bail application but the same was rejected vide order dated 16.11.2011. 3. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application of the accused petitioner and stated that at this stage in such an offence of bomb blast in a bus in which 14 passengers died and almost all the passengers were injured. The trial court rightly rejected the bail application of the petitioner. 3. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application of the accused petitioner and stated that at this stage in such an offence of bomb blast in a bus in which 14 passengers died and almost all the passengers were injured. The trial court rightly rejected the bail application of the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor invited attention of this court towards the fact that the accused petitioner Abdul Hameed son of Ibrahim Khan was tried for the offence under sections 307 read with section 120 B IPC, 435/120 B IPC, 118/120 IPC and sections 3,4,5 and 6 of the Explosive Act and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine and the original sentence ended on 7.6.2007 and on account of non- payment of fine his period of imprisonment will end on 7.9.2016. In these circumstances the accused petitioner against whom charge has been framed for the offence under sections 120 B read with sections 302, 307 IPC and sections 3/8 PDPP Act and sections 4/5 of the Explosive Act, should not be granted bail at this stage under section 439 Cr.P.c. The matter was directed to be posted for recording of the statements of the witnesses on 27.3.2012. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge and the material made available to me. I am in agreement with the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the accused petitioner under section 439 Cr.P.C. The Addl. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge and the material made available to me. I am in agreement with the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the accused petitioner under section 439 Cr.P.C. The Addl. Sessions Judge in his order dated 16.11.2011 observed as under : " izkFkhZ & vfHk;qDrx.k vCnqy gehn o jbZlcsx ds fo:) ;g eqdnek izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 148@96 iqfyl Fkkuk egok esa iathc) gqvk] ftlesa ckn vuqla/kku pktZ'khV lEcfU/kr U;kf;d eftLV~sV U;k;ky; esa is'k gksus ij ogkWa ls ;g eqdnek mikfiZr gksdj Jheku lS'ku U;k;k/kh'k] nkSlk ds U;k;ky; esa izsf"kr fd;k x;k] tgka ls izdj.k U;k;ky; vij ftyk ,oa lS'ku U;k;k/kh'k QkLV V~sd ckanhdqbZ eq[;ky; nkSlk esa vUrfjr gqvk] mlds i'pkr~ U;k;ky; vij ftyk ,oa lS'ku U;k;k/kh'k QkLV V~sd egok esa vUrfjr gqvk vkSj dkykUrj esa vUrfjr gksdj U;k;ky; gktk esa yfEcr py jgk gSA izdj.k ds lg vfHk;qDrx.k tkosn[kkj] vCnqyxuh] eksgEen vyhHkVV~] fetkZ ukflj ds fy, cgl pktZ fnukad 13-10-11 dks lquh] vfHk;qDrx.k Qk:[k o yrhQ ds odhy mifLFkr ugha gksus ls mUgkasus vius odhy ls pktZ cgl djkuk pkgus ij i=koyh fnukad 8-12-11 dks fu;r dh x;hA izkFkhZ vfHk;qDrx.k o vU; lg vfHk;qDrx.k dks tqeZ /kkjk 302] 307] 120 B Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 4@5 foLQksVd inkFkZ vf/kfu;e o 3/4 yksd lEifRr {kfr fuokj.k vf/kfu;e dk vkjksi i`Fkd ls fojfpr dj lquk;k x;k ,oa vfHk;kstu lk{; izkjEHk dh x;hA mlds i'pkr~ lg vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) pktZ'khV is'k gksus ij cgl pktZ dh dk;Zokgh gsrq izdj.k yfEcr jgkA miyC/k vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ vfHk;qDrx.k ds tekur vkosnu ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; gktk }kjk le; & le; ij [kkfjt fd;s x;s gSA miyC/k vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj bl Lrj ij izkFkhZ vfHk;qDrx.k us vU; vfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk lkFk feydj "kM~;a= dj vfHk;qDr pUnzizdk'k ds ;gka ls foLQksVd inkFkZ izkIr dj fofHkUu LFkkuksa ij Hkstk vkSj ml dM+h esa vfHk;qDr jbZlcsx us jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjogu fuxe dh cl uEcj vkj0ts0 07 ih 1038 esa foLQksVd lkexzh j[kh vkSj egok mrj x;s rFkk egok ls 3&4 fdyksehVj tkus ds ckn foLQksVd ls cl mM+ x;h rFkk 14 lokfj;kWa ej x;h vkSj 37 xaHkhj :i ls ?kk;y gks x;h gS rFkk cl o lkeku iw.kZr;k u"V gks x;kA ok;nk ekQ xokg lyhe mQZ iIiw ds c;kuksa ls Hkh izkFkhZ & vfHk;qDrx.k ds bl vkijkf/kd d`R; esa fyIr gksus ds dFku fd;s gSaA izkFkhZ vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr fof/kd n`"VkUr ,0vkbZ0vkj0 2009 lqizhe dksVZ ist 2399 lhchvkbZ U;w nsgyh cuke vfHk"ksd oekZ dk lEeku voyksdu fd;k x;kA mDr uthj okys ekeyas esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vfHk;qDr dks tqeZ /kkjk 3 vkWfQfl;y fldzsV ,DV ds vkjksi esa mldk fopkj.k 'kq: ugha gqvk FkkA bl vk/kkj ij mfpr 'krksZa ds lkFk tekur dk ykHk iznku fd;k x;kA orZeku izdj.k ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkr;ksa ukthj okys ekeys ls iw.kZr;k fHkUu gSaA ok;nk ekQh xokg lyhe mQZ iIiw ds c;ku izkjfEHkd Lrj ij eq[; U;kf;d eftLV~sV nkSlk }kjk ys[kc) fd;s x;sA mlds i'pkr~ U;k;ky; vij ftyl ,oa lS'ku U;k;k/kh'k QkLV V~sd egok }kjk fn;s x;s vkns'k ls izkFkhZ vfHk;qDrx.k vCnqyhehgn o jbZlcsx gsrq mDr lk{kh ls ftjg djok;h x;hA vr% bl Lrj ij izkFkhZ vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) vkjksfir xaHkhj izkd`fr ds vkjksi dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, mUgsa tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr izdV ugha gksrk gSA " 5. As pointed out by the Public Prosecutor and the letter of the office of the Superintendent Central Jaipur to the Deputy Superintendent of Police ATS Raj. Jaipur vide letter dated 3.11.2010 wherein it has been informed that the accused petitioner Abdul Hameed son of Ibrahim Khan is undergoing imprisonment in Sawai Man Singh Stadium Bomb Blast since year 2000 and sentence of imprisonment he is facing is 10 years. Looking to his past involvement in Sawai Man Singh Bomb Blast Case and as per the statement of the approver co-accused Pappu @ Salim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and cross examination in the court, since there are serious allegations of his involvement in the case, the accused petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. So far as trial is concerned, the trial court has already started recording statements of the prosecution witnesses and will conclude the trial expeditiously. 6. It may also be observed that this court on April 11, 2012 directed the Public Prosecutor to call for the report of the investigating officer and the prosecution department regarding providing of Amicus Curiae to the accused petitioner before the trial court. The Investigating officer by a detailed report opined that the Addl. Sessions Bandikui, vide his communication dated 13.4.2012 informed to the Collector Dausa that Shri Subhash Chand Gupta, Advocate has been appointed as Amicus Curiae for the accused petitioner Abdul Hameed son of Ibrahim and the next date in the case is 24.4.2012. The Investigating officer vide letter dated 11.4.2012 informed to the Jail Superintendent that the advocate of the accused petitioner informed before the High Court that the persons having 10 years advocacy should be appointed as Amicus Curiae for the accused petitioner Abdul Hameed. The letter was also shown to the accused petitioner Abdul Hameed. The accused petitioner Abdul Hameed on the said letter written as under : " ge dks tsy iz'kklu us odhy ds ckcr voxr djk;k gesa odhy dh vko';drk gS ysfdu ogkWa ij bl izdj.k ds leku l{ke odhy miyC/k ugha gS blfy, esa eSa Lo;a iSjoh dj jgk gaw dksVZ ds vkns'k ls vkns'k fnukad 9-7-2001 vkSj ckgj ls odhy cqykus esa eSa l{ke ugha gwaA " Sd/- Abdul Hameed 12.4.2012 Signature attested by Jail Superintendent Central Jail Jaipur." 7. From the written report of accused petitioner dated 12.4.2012 it appears that the accused petitioner wants to engage Amicus Curiae from outside advocates. Upon this, this Court asked Mr. Pekar Farooq, counsel appearing for the accused petitioner before this court to become Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused petitioner at Mahuwa court and for going to Mahuwa and coming back Govt. Vehicle will be provided. Upon this Mr. Pekar Farooq, advocate appearing for the accused petitioner refused to become Amicus Curiae for the accused petitioner before the trial court. The trial court is directed to pass appropriate orders in this regard providing appropriate Amicus Curiae to the accused petitioner as per rules. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, this criminal misc. bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. stands rejected. 9. The Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this court is directed to supply copy of this order to the Sessions Judge, Dausa, Collector Dausa, Addl. Sesisons Judge Dausa and Additional Sessions Judge Bandi Kui Camp Mahuwa forthwith.Bail Application Rejected. *******