Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Lalit Suwalka vs State Of Rajasthan Through P P on 6 March, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Cr Misc Fourth Bail Application No. 6880/2011 Lalit Suwalka Vs State of Rajasthan 6.3.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Rajneesh Gupta - for the petitioner Mr Laxman Meena, PP for the State BY THE COURT:
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the directions of this court, Additional Director (Prosecution), Beawar is present in the court. It is stated that he accepted copy of the order passed by this court. The revision petition could not be filed against the order passed on an application filed under section 319 CrPC as the same was filed by the co-accused. The revision petition was accordingly filed by the co-accused Surendra Kumar.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that this court issued directions from time to time taking note of the investigation, more so when it was brought to the notice of the court that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter leaving those who are deeply involved. The court had taken note of the order passed by the competent court for re-investigation of the matter. The effort of the court was to get the truth through investigating agency. In any case, prosecution evidence is over yet the trial is delayed showing it to be at the instance of the petitioner though he has no intention to delay the trial. The prayer of the petitioner is that if bail is not granted to the petitioner then a direction may be issued to the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest. It is also prayed that trial may be transferred to some other court looking to the fact that on one or the other ground the trial is not proceeding.
It is lastly urged that petitioner has been falsely implicated based on rent note though no rent note was recovered by the police other than a blank stamp paper. It was to show that premises was taken by the petitioner on rent. Without there being a rent note, the investigating agency heavily relied on the blank stamp paper to make a room for real culprits. Those who are owner of the premises and from where contraband was recovered, are not made accused. The prosecution agency half-heartedly moved the application under section 319 CrPC before the trial court to implicate those real culprits as the accused but without proper support and further dismissal of the application under section 319 CrPC was not on merit but keeping in mind that it was moved at the initial stage however with liberty to file it at an appropriate stage but the application under section 319 CrPC was not moved thereafter.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. He submits that prosecution evidence is over thus matter is pending for recording of statement of accused under section 313 CrPC and defence evidence. The moment aforesaid is completed followed by defence evidence, if any, trial can be concluded. If the petitioner makes an application for transfer of the trial to any other competent court, State will have no objection as the effort of the State is always for justice.
I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and have perused record of the case.
Any comment on merit of the case will cause prejudice to the accused petitioner thus without going into merit of the case, I am of the opinion that prosecution evidence having been completed, trial may be completed soon. Accordingly, I am not inclined to entertain this bail application at this stage. Hence, same is dismissed.
Learned counsel for petitioner has made a prayer for transfer of trial to any other competent court with a further direction to expedite the same. Prayer aforesaid is not opposed by the learned PP. Thus if any application for transfer of trial is moved and there is no hindrance in transfer of the trial, the petitioner is given liberty to make an application to transfer the case to any other competent court. In case such an application is moved, the court concerned is expected to consider and decide the same at the earliest as per provisions of law. In case of transfer of the case or otherwise, the trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the same at the earliest. Both the parties have agreed to co-operate with the trial court and any delay in trial would be viewed seriously by this court.
The directions aforesaid have been issued not only in view of the prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner but also keeping in mind peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, more specifically the facts narrated by learned counsel for petitioner.
It is also made clear that trial would be carried out without being influenced by any observation made in any of the order passed in the bail applications. Trial court is expected to conclude the trial by taking independent view.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-J