1 s1 S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.SECOND BAIL APPLICATION NO.6124/2009 Bagga Singh @ Tajvinder Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan DATE OF ORDER : 5th February 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Pradeep Shah, for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Singaria,Public Prosecutor for State. Mr.Rakesh Matoria, for the complainant. BY THE COURT The petitioner is accused of offences under Sections 376, 306 IPC; and has moved this second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. In this second bail application, filed on 16.11.2009, it was given out on the earlier occasions that the prosecution evidence was about to be completed and then it was given out that the matter was pending in the Trial Court while waiting for the FSL reports. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the matter of procuring FSL reports has been taken up seriously by the Prosecuting Agency and while one of the FSL report from the Laboratory at Jodhpur has been received, regarding the other FSL report, to be sent by the State Forensic Science Laboratory at Jaipur, the Director of the said laboratory has assured by the communication dated 04.02.2010 that the same will be submitted within 10 days. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed on the bail plea of the petitioner with the submissions that with practically all the relevant witnesses not supporting the prosecution case, there is no likelihood of the petitioner 2 being convicted but looking to the totality of the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant indulgence to the petitioner in this bail application. However, it does appear necessary to observe that there is absolutely no justification that the trial of the case is protracted or delayed only for the want of FSL report. In several other cases too, this Court has made serious comments and expressed rather anguish on such aspects of delay on the part of the agencies concerned. In the present case, it has now been stated that the requisite report shall be submitted within 10 days. In the circumstances of the case, such report be submitted to the court concerned at the earliest; and it would be expected of the court concerned to take up the matter for consideration immediately upon receipt of such report and to try to conclude the matter as early as possible. With the aforesaid observations, the second bail application stands rejected. It is also considered appropriate and hence observed that if for any reason, the learned Trial Court is unable to conclude the matter within reasonable time and the petitioner moves for bail afresh, such bail plea be considered by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law without being influenced by the fact of dismissal of the bail application by this Court. s.soni (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.