1 3 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. 2nd BAIL APPLN. NO. 3050/2010. Bahadur Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 11th June 2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI (Vacation Judge) Mr. Sandeep Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Bhurat, Public Prosecutor. ... The petitioner, accused of offence under Section 8/25 N.D.P.S. Act, has moved this second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The First Bail Application (No.4082/2009) as moved by the petitioner was rejected as not pressed on 16.12.2009 at the given stage with the following order,- “The learned counsel for the petitioner, while pointing out that charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and while placing challan papers for perusal before the Court, submits that the petitioner shall stand advised not to press on this bail application at this stage but to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law at appropriate stage particularly after the matter is considered by the learned Trial Court for framing of charges; and with such submissions, does not press on this bail application at this stage. In view of the submissions so made, this bail application moved on behalf of the petitioner Bahadur Singh s/o Mohan Singh under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands rejected as not pressed at this stage.” Though this second bail application was moved on behalf of the petitioner on 28.04.2010 after framing of the charges under Section 8/25 N.D.P.S. Act but then, while this application remained pending, another bail application bearing number 2325/2010, moved on behalf of the co-accused Bajrang Singh, son of the present petitioner, came to be considered by a co-ordinate Bench on 06.05.2010; and the 2 said co-accused Bajrang Singh was ordered to be enlarged on bail with the following order:- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused Bajrang Singh has been implicated on the basis of statement of co accused Bahadur Singh, who is his father and was registered owner of the vehicle. It is further submitted that on the spot, nobody was found when the recovery was made on 16.5.09. After more than two months, father of the accused was arrested as owner of the vehicle and in order to save himself, he implicated his son i.e. present accused when a notice u/s. 133 of the NDPS Act was given after his arrest. Without expressing any opinion about merits & keeping in view all the facts & circumstances of the case, I consider it to be a fit case for grant of bail u/s. 439 CrPC and it is directed that the petitioner Bajrang Singh shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court on usual conditions and shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so, till the completion of the trial.” It is also noticed that another bail application bearing number 3217/2010, as moved on behalf of another co- accused Tola Ram, who is said to be charged of offences under Section 8/15 N.D.P.S. Act, Sections 307, 357 IPC, and Section 3 P.D.P.P. Act came to be considered by another co- ordinate Bench; and was rejected on 12.05.2010. It is submitted in this second bail application on behalf of the petitioner that there has not been a semblance of evidence so as to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime and of the offence under Section 8/25 N.D.P.S. Act. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the petitioner has knowingly permitted the vehicle to be used for transportation of the alleged contraband; and hence, the petitioner does not deserve to be detained in 3 custody any further. It is also submitted that the petitioner is an ailing person in about 70 years of age and is suffering from various ailments including arthritis. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner and on examination of the material available on record, this Court is not persuaded to grant indulgence to the petitioner at this stage of the proceedings particularly when there does not appear any material change of circumstances and when the prosecution evidence is yet to commence. This Court would otherwise not like to make any comments relating to the merits of the case but looking to the nature of accusations and the overall circumstances, it does not appear appropriate to order release of the petitioner at this stage. In view of the aforesaid, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the petitioner Bahadur Singh son of Mohan Singh stands rejected. However, in the circumstances, it is considered appropriate and hence observed that the learned Trial Court may try to expedite the trial and to bring the matter to finality at the earliest. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), VJ. //Mohan//