1 7 S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.5071/2009 Shanker Vs. The State of Rajasthan DATE OF ORDER : 5th December 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Sandeep Mehta ) Mr.Gaurav Singh ) for the petitioner. Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi,Public Prosecutor for State. .... In this bail application, after repeat orders of this Court with expression of anguish on the manner of dealing of the matter by the prosecution in not supplying the legible and complete papers that ultimately the requisites have been supplied by the learned Public Prosecutor on 03.12.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor have been heard on the bail plea of the petitioner in this case involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 436 IPC. The matter being at the initial stage, this Court would not be making any comments on the merits of the case but looking, prima facie, at the accusations, of the petitioner having attempted at molestation of the daughter of the complainant; then, after resistance, having entered into scuffle; and thereafter, having allegedly put the house of the complainant on fire, this Court does not feel inclined to extend him indulgence at this stage. It has been sought to be argued that the suggestions of the petitioner having been identified while running way from the house put on fire remains baseless and questionable when it has, inter alia, been indicated in the site report that there 2 was no electricity available at the relevant place. Such circumstance, in the opinion of this Court, at this stage, cannot be taken as sufficient to altogether disbelieve the entire of the prosecution case. Having regard to the circumstances, this bail application moved on behalf of the petitioner Shanker s/o Kering under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands rejected at this stage. However, if the petitioner makes a request before the learned Trial Court for expeditious trial, the same be given due consideration by the learned Trial Court. Though this bail application stands disposed of with the order aforesaid, however, for the seriously questionable manner of conduct of the prosecution as has been noticed in this case; and when it appears that even the repeat communications of the Public Prosecutor have not received due attention of the authorities concerned, it does appear appropriate and hence is directed that this matter be placed 'to-be-mentioned' on 11.12.2009. It shall definitely be required of the authorities concerned to whom the learned Public Prosecutor has addressed the detailed communication on 03.12.2009 to state positively and specifically of the actions and the corrective measures taken; and it shall equally be required of the concerned Superintendent of Police to inform the Court about the action taken as suggested in his communication dated 03.12.2009, addressed to the learned Public Prosecutor. List this matter 'to-be-mentioned' on 11.12.2009. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. s.soni