Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manohar Lal Ainani vs State Of Rajasthan-State on 7 January, 2021
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5962/2020
Manohar Lal Ainani S/o Shri Laxmandas, Aged About 54 Years,
Cb 72, Goyal Terrace, Judges Bunglow, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat). (At Present Incarcerated In District Jail Sirohi).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan-State, Through Spl. P.p. Of D.r.i.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma
(through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vipul Singhvi, Spl PP of DRI
(through VC)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order 07/01/2021 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor of DRI and perused the material available on record.
The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.D.R.I/A.Z.U.G.I- 01/NDPS-01/2015 at Sub Unit, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 22, 25, 27A, 28, 29 and 38 of the NDPS Act, 1985. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the second bail application of the petitioner was rejected on 09.09.2019 as not pressed, however, this Court has observed that the trial court shall expedite the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the said order was passed by this Court, less than three witnesses have been examined before the trial court till date and the trial against the petitioner is not going in full swing. Learned counsel for the petitioner further (Downloaded on 07/01/2021 at 09:18:24 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-5962/2020] submitted that the petitioner is in custody for around more than five years and looking to the fact that the trial against the petitioner is not proceeding expeditiously, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the decision of Honb'le Supreme Court dated 23.01.2013 rendered in Thana Singh versus Central Bureau of Narcotics (Criminal Appeal No.1640 of 2010) and prayed that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thana Singh's case (supra) the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Learned standing counsel appearing for DRI Mr. Vipul Singhvi has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that considering the similar arguments a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 02.11.2020 rejected the bail application of co-accused Ratilal D. Patel while observing that in the present case huge quantity of prohibited drug has been recovered. Mr. Singhvi has, therefore, prayed that the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is reject (VIJAY BISHNOI),J 53-akash/-
(Downloaded on 07/01/2021 at 09:18:24 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)