[2024:RJ-JD:40576]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3^rd Bail Application No. 12291/2024 Sampat Singh S/o Hukam Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Jakhli Ps Makrana, Dist. Didwana, Raj. (Lodged In Dist. Jail Nagaur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Udawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

26/09/2024

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant third bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the record revealing that the instant one is the third bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. On two earlier occasions bail applications of the petitioner were rejected; the second bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2024 on the ground that there was no change in circumstance or fact in law and the instant third bail application has been moved on three counts i.e.

(a) Length of incarceration;

(b) Cognizance is taken against the law and still prosecution sanction is not accorded by the appropriate authorities;

(c) On the ground that investigation has been completed.

The charge sheet came to be submitted against the petitioner on 05.06.2024 for the offence under Sections 286 of the IPC, Section 9 (kh) of the Explosive Act, 1884 and Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908. Section 286 of the IPC is a bailable offence. Section 9 (b) of the Explosive Act, 1884 do not contain sentence of more than three years. There is a mandate under the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 unless a prosecution sanction is accorded by the appropriate authority. Admittedly, the prosecution sanction has not been issued in the case at hand. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jayal took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 05.06.2024, however, the order dated 30.08.2024 reflecting that the prosecution sanction has not been accorded by the District Collector, Nagaur till now. It is mentioned in the order sheet dated 30.08.2024 that the SHO, of the concerned Police Station was present and submitted a report and as per which no sanction was accorded by the District Collector, Nagaur. The fact is incorporated in the above order that the accused was in judicial custody since a long but no progress has been shown in the sanction matter and thus, serious anguish has been shown and at the same time, an explanation has been sought.

6. This Court is miffed with the state of affairs present in this case as the accused got arrested, charge sheet has been filed but despite the request of the Superintendent Of Police Nagaur the appropriate authority, the District Magistrate, Nagaur has not accorded or declined the pr