1 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5337/2009. Krishan Kumar @ Sethi Vs. The State of Rajasthan ... S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.5338/2009. Krishan Kumar @ Sethi Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order ::: 8th December 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. R.S. Gill, for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Singaria, Public Prosecutor. ... These two bail applications, though related to different FIRs but concerning the same accused-petitioner have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order. The relevant background aspects of the matters are that the petitioner is accused of offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act in FIR No.217/2006 Police Station, Hanumangarh Town on the accusation that on 20.04.2006, he was found carrying in his pocket about 7 grams of smack. After filing of the charge-sheet in relation to this FIR, the petitioner is facing trial in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Hanumangarh. In relation to this case, the petitioner moved an application for bail, bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1965/2006 that was allowed by this Court on 10.05.2006; and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail. 2 It appears that the petitioner, however, got involved further in FIR No.355/2006 of the same police station for the same offence under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act with another recovery of 7 grams of smack from his possession. The petitioner was again arrested and applied for bail; and this Court again granted him bail while allowing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3015/2006 on 18.07.2006. It appears further that while both the matters remained pending in the trial, the petitioner failed to appear on the date of hearing and his bail bonds were forfeited and then, he was produced in execution of non-bailable warrant. The petitioner, then, moved the bail applications afresh to this Court and such bail applications were allowed by this Court, on 18.07.2008 (Bail Application No.3737/2008 in relation to FIR No.355/2006) and on 21.07.2008 (Bail Application No.3772/2008 in relation to FIR No.217/2006); and he was, again, ordered to be enlarged on bail. The petitioner appears to have again remained absent in the trial on 05.11.2008 wherefor his bail bonds were forfeited and he was again arrested on 11.11.2008. The petitioner is in custody since then. The bail applications as moved by the petitioner this time came to be rejected by the learned Trial Court 3 particularly with the observations that he was involved in two cases, that he had been granted bail twice over by the High Court and he has misused the liberty. It has also been observed that the trials were nearing completion; and the samples have been sent for re-examination at the request of accused-petitioner himself. These two bail applications in relation to aforesaid FIRs were filed on 08.09.2009 and have remained pending all this time. On 11.11.2009, this Court observed that though looking to the nature of accusation and the fact that the petitioner had earlier remained absent in the cases twice over, he had not been granted indulgence but then, the prosecution was also not justified in keeping the matters pending for inordinate length of time in the name of obtaining the FSL reports. While granting last opportunity to the prosecution to procure the reports, consideration of these bail applications was deferred but with the observation that if the prosecution would fail to obtain the requisite reports and to place the same before the Court, the bail plea of the petitioner would be considered on its merits while keeping in view the fault on the part of prosecution. 4 These matters were taken up on 25.11.2009 and though certain so-called report was placed before the Court regarding the proceedings taken in the Trial Court but not the FSL report. However, when it was pointed out that the matter was fixed in the Trial Court on 30.11.2009, consideration of these bail applications was deferred to 02.12.2009 while reiterating the earlier observations. These matters were, thereafter, placed on 04.12.2009 and were passed over and have now come up for consideration. It has been pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that so far FIR No.355/2006 is concerned (related with Bail Application No.5338/2009), FSL report has been received and has been produced on 19.11.2009 but so far FIR No.217/2006 is concerned, such report has not been received; and even a second reminder has been sent to the concerned laboratory on 04.12.2009. This Court finds absolutely no justification as to why the requisite FSL report has not been made available within reasonable time and it is rather strange to notice the submissions of the Public Prosecutor that despite reminders, one of the requisite report has not been received. Though the conduct of the petitioner in jumping the bail cannot be countenanced but then, the fact cannot be lost sight 5 of that the petitioner is in custody since 11.11.2008 and is said to have remained in custody for about 3 months earlier between period of his arrest and release on bail. The fact also remains that the petitioner was earlier granted bail by this Court in both the cases on both the occasions, as noticed above. After having failed to appear on the date fixed, now when the petitioner is in custody for the last more than one year and the requisite report in one case has not yet been furnished, this Court is unable to find any justification to continue with his detention any further. Though the petitioner is said to be involved in two cases but looking to the nature of accusation, the quantity of substance allegedly recovered, the unnecessary delay caused by the prosecution in further progress of the matters in the name of obtaining FSL reports, and in the totality of circumstances, this Court finds it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail but, of course, with the condition that if he would be found involved in any other criminal case, the prosecution would be entitled to seek cancellation of bail being granted herein. The stipulation aforesaid shall be distinctly mentioned in the bail bonds to be furnished by the petitioner. 6 Subject to the requirements aforesaid, these two bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Krishan Kumar @ Sethi S/o Mohan Lal be released on bail in relation to FIR No. 217/2006 (Bail Application No. 5337/2009) and FIR No. 355/2006 (Bail Application No. 5338/2009), Police Station Hanumangarh Town provided in each of the case he executes the requisite personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) each to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever and wherever called upon to do so till the completion of trial. After forwarding the order, this matter be placed 'to-be- mentioned' on 11.12.2009 alongwith other matters ordered to be placed in that category in view of faults on the part of agencies related with prosecution. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK 7 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.5338/2009. Krishan Kumar @ Sethi Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order ::: 8th December 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. R.S. Gill, for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Singaria, Public Prosecutor. . This bail application stands allowed vide common order made in S.B.Cr.Misc.Bail Application No.5337/2009 Krishan Kumar @ Sethi Vs. The State of Rajasthan. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK