RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Devendra Kachhawaha, J.
Puran S/o Pyare Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16535 of 2021
Decided On : 09-12-2021
BAIL - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT - The court granted bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. despite previous absconding, considering the lengthy trial process and the fact that charges had already been framed. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to appear for hearings, reflecting a balance between the rights of the accused and the interests of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, was in judicial custody after being declared absconder due to non-appearance in court. He was arrested after several years and sought bail, assuring future appearances.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the prolonged trial and the fact that charges had been framed, indicating that the absence of the petitioner had significantly delayed proceedings. The court decided to grant bail, emphasizing the importance of the petitioner’s commitment to appear in court.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite previous absconding and the impact of his absence on the trial's progress.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to bail should be considered in light of the trial's duration and the petitioner's assurance to appear, without delving into the merits of the case.
Result: The bail application was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties.
ORDER
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in judicial custody in connection with Criminal Case No.1445/2018 pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate, (N.I. Act Cases), No.6, Udaipur under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The bail application of the petitioner was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Udaipur by order dated 01.12.2021 in Criminal Misc. Case No.2499/2021 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that accused- petitioner could not appear before the learned trial Court due to some unavoidable reasons on 30.03.2015, therefore, the petitioner has been declared absconder and his bail bonds were forfeited; thereafter, accused-petitioner was arrested on 29.11.2021; charges were already framed on 06.07.2015; the petitioner now assures that he will appear before the trial Court on every date of the hearing; further trial will take long time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.
4. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that due to absence of the accused-petitioner, proceeding of the trial has been affected since last six years.
This is a matter of bail jump.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the fact that offences are triable by Magistrate; charges were already framed; and trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
6. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioners - Puran S/o Pyare Lal, who is in judicial custody in connection with Criminal Case No.1445/2018 titled as Jitesh Jain Vs. Puran pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate, (N.I. Act Cases), No.6, Udaipur under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, shall be released on bail if not wanted in any other case; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.60,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.30,000/- (one surety shall be of close relative/blood relative ) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
The court established that the right to bail can be granted even in cases of prior absconding, provided the accused demonstrates a commitment to participate in the judicial process.
The court has the discretion to direct the accused to appear before the trial court and move a regular bail application in cases of bailable offences.
The court established that bail can be granted when the accused has been in custody for a significant period, the trial is expected to be lengthy, and the offences are triable by a Magistrate.
The court may grant bail considering the trial timeline and the nature of the offences, even without expressing an opinion on the merits/demerits of the case.
The court has the discretion to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the facts and circumstances of the case without commenting on the merits of the case.
Bail may be granted when the trial is expected to be lengthy and the offence is triable by a Magistrate, reflecting the court's discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The court emphasized the necessity of completing trials within 60 days as mandated by S.437(6) of the CrPC, prioritizing personal liberty.
The court considered the triable nature of the offences, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the expected lengthy trial as key factors in granting bail to the accused-petitioner.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.