1 8 S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.SECOND BAIL APPLICATION NO.4609/2009 Mohammed Ismail Vs. The State of Rajasthan DATE OF ORDER : 10th September 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.B.N.Kalla with Mr.Mehmood Aslam,for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Prajapat,Public Prosecutor for State. .... BY THE COURT The petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Sections 279, 337 & 304A IPC in Criminal Case No.193/1997 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begun. The petitioner was earlier enlarged on bail but having failed to attend the date of hearing on 16.03.2000, his bail bonds were forfeited. Thereafter, the petitioner did not attend the matter for long but, instead, moved an application on 22.04.2008 to the effect that he should be summoned and be not arrested by way of non-bailable warrant. Such an application was rejected on 07.05.2008; and even a revision petition filed by the petitioner was rejected on 12.09.2008. The petitioner, yet, avoided to appear in the case and was arrested later. The first bail application as moved by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 21.04.2009 and that moved to this Court was rejected on 11.05.2009 after 2 finding no justification for the long absence of the petitioner and noticing the fact that for his continuous absence for about nine years, the original criminal case instituted way back in the year 1997 had remained pending. The petitioner thereafter moved the second bail application before the learned Sessions Judge that was also rejected on 21.07.2009 finding no change of circumstance. The petitioner has, thus, moved this second bail application. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner with reference to the order passed by this Court in the case of Gajanand Vs. State of Rajasthan: 1989 RCC 236 that despite long absence of ten years, this Court granted bail after taking heavy bail bonds and in the present case too, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged and in order to ensure his presence, heavy bail bonds may be taken. The submissions as made do not make out a case of grant of bail to the present petitioner. In the case of Gajanand (supra), one of the essential circumstance was that the co- accused had already been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. In the present case, as noticed, the trial has remained pending for about nine years due to the absence of the petitioner; and then, the petitioner, despite long absence and his bail bonds having already been forfeited, instead of co- 3 operating in the process of law, came out with the suggestion that non-bailable warrants should not be issued against him and then took up the matter in revision but did not bother to surrender. Over all circumstances of the present case compel this Court to deduce that the petitioner has not been interested in co-operating with the process of law for proper trial; and to deny him indulgence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this second bail application stands rejected. However, the learned Trial Court may consider the fact that this Court has declined the bail plea of the petitioner and try to proceed expeditiously with the trial. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. s.soni