Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 62
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Ahmed @ Patar S/o Shri Mehmood Khan - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc IVth Bail Application No. 16010 of 2016
Decided On : 09-01-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma.
For the Respondent: Dr. N.S. Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor.
The court has the discretion to deny bail based on the facts and circumstances of the case, including the pendency of multiple cases against the petitioner and the length of time the petitioner has been in judicial lockup.
Headnote:
Bail Application - Criminal Procedure Code - The court dismissed the fourth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the petitioner's repeated applications for bail and the pendency of multiple cases against the petitioner. The court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two months.
Fact of the Case:
The accused petitioner filed a fourth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after previous bail applications were dismissed. The petitioner had been in judicial lockup for a significant period, and the trial of the case was likely to take time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not a fit case to release the petitioner on bail. However, the court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Issues: Repeated bail applications, pendency of multiple cases against the petitioner, and the length of time the petitioner had been in judicial lockup.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the repeated bail applications, the pendency of multiple cases against the petitioner, and the length of time the petitioner had been in judicial lockup in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The fourth bail application was dismissed, but the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
1. This fourth bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that FIR No.114/2015 was registered at PS Mehandwas, Tonk for the offences mentioned therein. During the course of investigation, the accused petitioner was arrested. Thereafter the accused petitioner moved bail application before the learned court below which was dismissed on 28/8/2015. His first bail application was dismissed by this court on 27/10/2015 with liberty to file a fresh one after filling of challan. Thereafter he moved the bail application before the trial court which was dismissed vide order dated 22/12/2015. Thereafter second bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner before this court which was dismissed on 10/2/2016. His third bail application was dismissed on 25/7/2016. Thereafter, trial court dismissed the bail application on 8/11/2016.Hence this bail application.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that most of the witnesses including the complainant have been declared hostile therefore either the petitioner may be granted bail or the trial court be directed to conclude the trial within a period of two months after receipt of the certified copy of this order. It has also been contended that the accused petitioner is in judicial lockup since long and the conclusion of trial of the case is likely to take time, hence the accused petitioner should be released on bail.
4. Learned PP opposed the bail application and contended that there is no change in circumstances. He further contended that eleven cases are pending against the petitioner hence he be not released on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material placed before the court.
6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I do not think it is a fit case to release the petitioner on bail.
7. Therefore, this fourth bail application is dismissed.
8. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
