Swaroop Ram vs State on 15 December, 2009

                                1

(1)S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.4952/2009
         Swaroop Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan

(2)S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.4953/2009
          Swaroop Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan

 DATE OF ORDER            :     15th December 2009

       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

 Mr.Ramesh Purohit for the petitioner.
 Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor for State.
                               ....

       These two bail applications, though relating to different

 FIRs but concerning the same accused petitioner             and

 involving similar   circumstances,   have    been   considered

 together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order.

       The petitioner is accused in two criminal cases pending

 since the year 2002 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jayal

 for offence under Section 379 IPC.           For the petitioner

 remaining absent in these cases on 30.01.2009,          his bail

 bonds were forfeited; and thereafter,    he was arrested     on

 21.08.2009.   The bail applications as moved by the petitioner

 were declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

 Nagaur    essentially for the reason that he had repeatedly

 jumped the bail and his bail bonds were earlier forfeited in the

 years 2004, 2007 and 2008 and such absence has caused the

 delay in disposal of the matter.

       The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously

 argued that the petitioner had all through attended the matter

 on substantial number of dates of hearing and it had, in fact,

 been for the absence of the co-accused Salim that the matter

 got prolonged; that there is no any         recovery suggested
                                      2

     against the petitioner    in these matters; and that he has

     remained in custody for sufficiently long time and deserves

     indulgence. However, the learned Public Prosecutor informs

     on instructions that practically the trial is nearing completion in

     these matters with only one witness remaining to be

     examined; and the matters are fixed in the Trial Court on 19th

     inst.

             At the given stage of trial, though this Court does not

     find it proper to pass an order for release of the petitioner on

     bail and, therefore, these bail applications are being rejected

     but then, in the totality of circumstances, it does appear

     appropriate and hence is observed that if the prosecution

     evidence is completed on 19th inst., the learned Trial Court

     shall endeavour to decide the matters without further loss of

     time; but if the evidence is not completed on 19.12.2009 for

     any reason and the matters remain pending, in that event, if

     the petitioner moves the applications for bail afresh, the

     same shall be considered by the learned Trial Court on their

     own merits irrespective of rejection of the earlier bail

     applications by the learned Sessions Judge or by this Court by

     this order.

             With the aforesaid observations, these bail applications

     moved on behalf of the petitioner Swaroop Ram s/o Sukha

     Ram stand rejected at this stage.



                                      (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.

MK
3

S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.4953/2009
Swaroop Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan

DATE OF ORDER : 15th December 2009

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

Mr.Ramesh Purohit for the petitioner.
Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor for State.

This bail application stands rejected with observations at

this stage vide common order made in S.B.Cr.Misc.Bail

Application No.4952/2009 (Swaroop Ram Vs. State of

Rajasthan).

(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.

MK