The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reliance on allegedly fictitious documents to support a bail application can lead to the denial of bail and the initiation of criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Petitioner has filed the instant special leave petition, seeking regular bail. It is not a matter of dispute, that the instant application is the third bail application, filed Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During the course of hearing, it was submitted, that the Petitioner has co-operated through out, and has not sought any unnecessary adjournments, and that, keeping in mind his age, which is 79 years, and the length of his incarceration till date, which is approximately three years and five months, he should be granted the concession of bail. More so, because the prosecution evidence has since been closed, and there is therefore no ground to fear any influence over prosecution witnesses at this stage. Even though the instant prayer for the concession of bail Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was originally canvassed on the basis of a communication dated 08.11.2016, attributed to the office of the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, yet the same having been withdrawn at a subsequent stage, will not be taken into consideration for disposing of the present application.

2. Insofar as the stand of the State of Rajasthan is concerned, the prayer made at the behest of the Petitioner is strongly opposed. It is submitted, that it is the accused himself, who is responsible for the delay and prolongation of the trial, and had he not unnecessarily delayed the trial, which could have been over, by now. In this behalf, in order to demonstrate deliberate delay, it is pointed out, that the investigating officer was summoned on 104 dates of hearing, for cross-examination.

3. In addition to the above, it is pointed out, that there were several attacks on prosecution witnesses, and two of the prosecution witnesses were killed during the trial. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, does not seriously contest the fact, that there were attacks on prosecution witnesses. It is however his contention, that since the Petitioner himself was in jail, the above incident cannot be attributed to the Petitioner.

4. In addition to the above, learned Counsel for the Respondent - State of Rajasthan pointed out, that it is up to the accused himself, inasmuch as, he can seek the disposal of the trial at the earliest, by concluding the recording of his defence witnesses, without any delay. In this behalf, it is also pointed out, that consequent upon an order, having been passed by the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, the trial is being conducted, on a day to day basis.

5. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the sequence of events, brought out by the learned Counsel for the rival parties, we are satisfied, that the facts and circumstances of this case, do not commend us to grant the concession of bail, Under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the Petitioner. It is not possible for us to overlook the fact, that the trial in the matter was unnecessarily prolonged, and just one prosecution witness, was recalled 104 times, for cross-examination. It can also not be overlooked, that during the period when prosecution witnesses were examined, there were number of attacks on the witnesses, leading to the death of the two prosecution witnesses. It is also not out of place to mention, that even the lady Investigating Officer - PW-3, was threatened by a hired assassin. The said assassin, we were informed, has since been arrested, and is being proceeded against. Accordingly, we find no justification in the prayer made by the Petitioner for the grant of regular bail to the Petitioner.

6. There is another issue, which arises for consideration at our hands, in the facts that have emerged, during the course of hearing (as have already noticed hereinabove), the prayer for bail at the hands of the Petitioner, was originally based on a communication dated 8.11.2016, purportedly to have been issued by the office of the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur,