Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 585 (RAJ)

Bhimgar v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-05

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2025
ORDER : KULDEEP MATHUR, J. 1.These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.154/2020 registered at Police Station Marwar Junction, Pali for offences under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, during nakabandi, on 17.06.2020, a team of Police Station Marwar Junction apprehended one Swift Car having registration No.GJ-02- BD-6179 which was being driven by the petitioner- Rekhagar S/o Sh. Meghagar. On search being made, the team recovered contraband (poppy husk/straw) weighing 103 Kgs. The petitioner was arrested on the spot. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 17.06.2020. They further submitted that till date, out of total 21 cited prosecution witnesses, only 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined before competent Criminal Court. He further submitted that the delay in trial is not at all attributable to the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody since last more than 4 years 8 months and looking to the pace at which trial is being conducted against the present petitioners, the same is not likely to be concluded in near future. 4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the cases of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orisa (Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169/2023 and Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023 On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioners are facing trial for the offence under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the present bail applications deserves to be rejected straightway. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, was not in position to refute the fact that in last more than 4 years 8 months, out of total 21 cited prosecution witnesses, only 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, was not in position to refute the fact that in last more than 4 years 8 months, out of total 21 cited prosecution witnesses, only 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioners has suffered incarceration for last more than 4 years 8 months and out of total 21 cited prosecution witnesses, only 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date, thus without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted. 8. Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners- (1) Rekhagar S/o Sh. Meghagar and (2) Bhimgar S/o Sh Daangarh shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.154/2020 registered at Police Station Marwar Junction, Pali, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so. 9. In case, the petitioners remains absent on any date of hearing or makes an attempt to delay the trial by seeking unnecessary adjournments, it shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail granted to him by this Court. The prosecution, in such a situation, shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners today by this Court. 10. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.