Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1161 (RAJ)

Aadil Ansari v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-04-16

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 2. Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 212 I.P.C. and Section 19 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short the Act of 1967 hereinafter). 3. As per prosecution story, one alleged terrorist Sakib Ansari S/o Aslam Ansari was apprehended by the police in connection with Case No. 54/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 471, 489B, 489C and 120-B I.P.C. read with Sections 16, 18, 19 and 20 of the Act of 1967 and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Act and several other offences registered at Police Station, Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi. During the course of interrogation, Sakib Ansari had informed the police that explosive material was provided to him by one Barkat Ali s/o Liyakat Ali, resident of House No. 8, Haji Street, Shanti Priya Nagar, Jodhpur. On receiving this information, the S.H.O., Police Station, Pratap Nagar, the then Additional S.P., Bora Nada and Officers of ATS, Jodhpur raided the house of Barkat Ali where his father Liyakat Ali was found, who informed the police that Barkat Ali had left the house after receiving calls from the petitioner. The police searched the room of Barkat Ali where they found explosive materials. As per the charge-sheet, the allegation against the petitioner is that when the petitioner came to know about arrest of Sakib Ansari, he immediately informed Barkat Ali on mobile phone and asked him to come to his house and when Barkat Ali reached his house, the petitioner facilitated in fleeing him away. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the course of investigation the police had failed to collect strong evidence to this effect that the petitioner was involved in commission of crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is in jail from more than five years i.e. since 23.3.2014 and till date, after framing of charge, only one prosecution witness has been examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that every accused has right of speedy trial and if there is likelihood that trial will take long time, he/she is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that every accused has right of speedy trial and if there is likelihood that trial will take long time, he/she is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as a matter of fact, the ATS had approached the High Court while claiming that the Court, wherein the trial against the petitioner and co-accused persons is pending, has no jurisdiction to continue with the trial and taking into consideration this fact also, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jagmohan Singh @ Rinku Sikh v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2018(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 36 . 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that during the course of investigation, the police had collected prima facie evidence to the effect that the petitioner helped the co-accused Barkat Ali, from whose house, huge explosive material was recovered by the police, in fleeing away from the scene of crime while calling him from his house. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, submitted that in view of prima facie evidence collected by the police during the course of investigation, the involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime is apparent. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has also argued that as per the provisions of Sub-Section (5) of Section 43D of the Act of 1967, no accused person can be released on bail without recording a finding that accusation against such person is prima facie not true. Learned Public Prosecutor has, therefore, argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the charge-sheet, this Court is of the view that it is difficult to form an opinion that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that accusation against the petitioner is prima facie not true and, therefore, taking into consideration the restrictions imposed under Section 43-D of the Act of 1967, no case for grant of bail is made out. 10. The facts of the case of Jagmohan Singh @ Rinku Sikh (supra) are quite distinguishable from the facts of this case, hence, it is of no help to the petitioner. 10. The facts of the case of Jagmohan Singh @ Rinku Sikh (supra) are quite distinguishable from the facts of this case, hence, it is of no help to the petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.