1 S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.2729/2009 Bijal Vs. The State of Rajasthan DATE OF ORDER : 8th December 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Mahesh Bora,for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Joshi,Public Prosecutor for State. .... BY THE COURT The petitioner, having been implicated in FIR No.48/2008, Police Station Shambhupura wherein the charge- sheet had earlier been filed for the offences under Section 8/15, 8/18, 8/25 of the NDPS Act but the investigation qua the petitioner was kept pending under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. and then, supplementary charge-sheet has been filed on 06.10.2009 against him for the offences under Sections 8/15, 8/18 and 29 of the NDPS Act, has moved this application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that there is not even a remote piece of legal evidence so as to connect the petitioner with the crime; that certain information allegedly stated by the co-accused Bhuradas while in custody, cannot, by any stretch of argument, be made the basis of accusation against the petitioner when such information would not even be admissible per Section 27 of 2 the Evidence Act. It has also been pointed out that the co- accused Bhuradas has been ordered to be enlarged on bail by this Court while allowing Bail Application No.6438/2008 on 09.02.2009. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application with the submissions that the facts regarding complicity of the petitioner surfaced right at the inception as has been mentioned in the initial report that after the detained vehicle was found carrying about 383 kilograms of doda- chura and 8 grams of opium, Bhuradas, an occupant of the vehicle, divulged the facts about the contraband having been loaded in the vehicle after purchase from Bijal Rebari (the present petitioner) and Naru s/o Nanu Bheel; and Bhuradas also identified the place where the contraband was loaded in the vehicle. It is noticed that the petitioner has been arrested in relation to this case on 11.04.2009. The case was registered on 03.04.2008 and the initial charge-sheet was filed on 29.09.2008. It is also noticed from the papers placed on record that, in fact, the prosecution evidence had started in the Trial Court before putting up of the supplementary charge-sheet in relation to the petitioner. 3 It is further noticed that the petitioner did move an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to this Court (Bail Application No.6729/2008) that was dismissed as not pressed on 05.12.2008. The petitioner was, however, arrested only on 11.04.2009. Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances, though this Court does not feel persuaded to grant indulgence to the petitioner at this stage but then, it appears just and appropriate to observe that the matter being otherwise pending trial and, in fact, the trial having already commenced, it shall be expected of the learned Trial Court to proceed expeditiously with the matter curbing against any unnecessary delay. Subject to the observations aforesaid, the bail application moved on behalf of the petitioner Bijal Rebari s/o Bakshuji under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands rejected at this stage. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. s.soni