Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Pappu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28999) on 4 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:28999]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6733/2025
Pappu Ram S/o Shri Bhakhraram Bishnoi, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Pithawas Ps Dangiyawas District Jodhpur (At Present Lodged
In Central Jail, Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Choudhary,
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
04/07/2025
This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
(483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been
arrested in connection with FIR No.242/2021 registered at Police
Station Rashmi District Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections
8/15 & 8/29 of the NDPS Act; and Section 414 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-
accused Sunil (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5369/2025)
has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated
14.05.2025.
Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present
petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused Sunil
who has already been enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial
custody since 24.10.2021. He further submitted that out of total
26 cited prosecution witnesses, only 04 cited prosecution
witnesses have been examined before competent Criminal Court.
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 05:37:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28999] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6733/2025]
He further submitted that the delay in trial is not at all attributable
to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is in judicial
custody since last more than three years and eight months and
looking to the pace at which trial is being conducted against the
present petitioner, the same is not likely to be concluded in near
future.
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
petitioner on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is facing
trial for the offence under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the
present bail application deserves to be rejected straightway.
However, learned Public Prosecutor was not in position to refute
the fact that the above named co-accused has already been
enlarged on bail; so also that in last more than 3 years and 8
months, out of total 26 cited prosecution witnesses, only 04
witnesses have been examined till date.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the
petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than 3 years and 8
months and out of total 26 cited prosecution witnesses, only 04
witnesses have been examined till date, without expressing any
opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 05:37:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28999] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6733/2025]
that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be
accepted.
Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-
petitioner- Pappu Ram S/o Shri Bhakhraram Bishnoi shall be
enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.242/2021 registered at
Police Station Rashmi, District Chittorgarh, provided he 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
his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of
hearing as and when called upon to so.
In case, the petitioner 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
petitioner today by this Court.
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.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
234-himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 07/07/2025 at 05:37:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link