Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gorav vs State on 27 April, 2017
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. IVth Bail No. 3075 / 2017
Gorav S/o Raj Kumar, By Caste Brahmin, R/o Khanpura,
Mandsoure, City Kotwali, District Mandsore At Present Kasod
Darwaja, Nimbaheda District Chittorgarh (At Present Lodge in
District Jail Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kaluram Bhati.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Pankaj Awasthi, P.P.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order 27/04/2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
The petitioner is in custody from 31.8.2012. Learned counsel Shri Bhati craves bail for the petitioner on two grounds; firstly that the FSL after analysing the sample of the contraband clearly gave an opinion that the same did not test positive for presence of diacetyl morphine and thus, the contraband does not answer the definition of heroine and secondly, that the trial is not proceeding expeditiously.
So far as the first argument advanced by Shri Bhati is concerned, this Court need not dwell on the same even for a moment because the very same argument based on the FSL report has already been considered when the second bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was rejected. It was noticed by the Court that the sample gave positive test for (2 of 2) [CRLMB-3075/2017] the presence of 29% morphine, monoacetyl morphine and acetylcodeine. Thus, definitely, the recovered contraband answers to the definition of manufactured drug/preparation as contained in Section 21 of the NDPS Act. The second argument advanced by Shri Bhati is that the trial is not proceeding expeditiously even though the accused is in custody for the last more than 4½ years. It is indeed a matter of concern that the prosecution has failed in its endeavour to examine the witnesses for a pretty long time. More than 4½ years have lapsed since the petitioner was arrested but till date, large number of witnesses remain to be examined. Thus, obviously, the prosecution is failing in its statutory obligation to present the witnesses before the trial Court in a timely manner whereby the trial is being unnecessarily delayed.
However, considering the fact that a significant commercial quantity of manufactured/prepared drug as defined in Section 21 of the NDPS Act was recovered from the petitioner's possession, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail at this stage. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to try and complete the same within a period of six months from today.
Accordingly, the instant fourth application for bail preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed with the above directions.
Copy of this order be forwarded to the Director General of Police, Rajathan forthwith.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)J. /tarun goyal/ Sr.P.A