Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Parvinder Singh @ Kala vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:2815) on 13 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:2815]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15325/2024
Parvinder Singh @ Kala S/o Late Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Aged About
30 Years, R/o -W.no.-13,near Bus Stand, Sangaria, Ps-
Sangaria , Dist Hanumangarh. (Ar Present Lodged At Dist
Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahender Singh Soni
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
13/01/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS at
the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the
matter are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 92/2021 2. Concerned Police Station Sadar Hanumangarh 3. District Hanumangarh 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 8/22 of NDPS Act, Sections 307, 332, 353 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 5. Offences added, if any Section 29 of the NDPS Act
6. Date of passing of impugned 12.11.2024
order
(Downloaded on 16/01/2025 at 09:31:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2815] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-15325/2024]
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 considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record.
5. As a matter of fact the name of the petitioner does not find
place in the FIR. It is the case of the prosecution that on
24.04.2021 when the police team was on patrolling, they saw
one – Sukhdeep along with one other person and they made
an attempt to avoid the clutches of the police. They were
having a bag in the car containing medicinal drug. On seeing
the police they made their escape good. The efforts were
made to apprehend them but of no avail. The petitioner
Parvinder Singh came to be arrested on 30.06.2022 and
stated that he was the other person accompanying one –
Sukhdeep. No corroborative evidence has been placed on
record to show or suggest that the applicant – Parvinder was
accompanying Sukhdeep at the relevant point of time. As a
matter of fact, the identification parade was not conducted
before making his apprehension which was imperative upon
(Downloaded on 16/01/2025 at 09:31:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2815] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-15325/2024]
the prosecution for doing so before affecting his arrest. There
is no justification of arrest of the petitioner – Parvinder simply
on the assertion of Investigating Officer who informed that at
the time when the incident took place, the Seizing Officer
Man Singh and his team members were not having
knowledge of the other person who fled away from the spot
along with Sukhdeep. Indeed the material evidence is lying
against the petitioner, and, therefore, there would be no
justification to keep him incarcerated for a further time. In
the given circumstances, the embargo contained under
Section 37 of NDPS Act does not come in the way while
granting bail to the petitioner.
6. Another aspect for consideration of the bail plea would be
that this Court is of the view that for the purpose of proving
charge only a reasonable period can be granted to the
prosecution while keeping an accused behind the bars. Still
the guilt is to be proved and as per the theory of Criminal
Jurisprudence, he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is
proved. In a Sessions case, a trial ought to have commenced
and completed within a Session i.e. one year. When some
unavoidable circumstances are considered than it can be
doubled, however in any case a person cannot be detained
for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the prosecution to
substantiate the charge as is not desirable under the law.
Right to have speedy trial is guaranteed by the Constitution
of India and herein this case the same has been infringed
owing to lackadaisical behavior of the prosecution party in not
(Downloaded on 16/01/2025 at 09:31:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2815] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-15325/2024]
presenting the witness in the trial within a reasonable period.
When there appears reasonable ground to presume that
certain infirmity or legal defect would be fatal to the
prosecution still not exercising power of granting bail would
mean not honoring the guarantee of the Constitution given to
every individual regarding protection of his liberty. There is
high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude.
In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed
suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the
present matter.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C./483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the
accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be
enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- 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 do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
147-divya/-
(Downloaded on 16/01/2025 at 09:31:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)