IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. IVth Bail Appl. No. 5052/2010 Bhupendra Singh @ Bhup Vs. State of Raj. Dated : 02.08.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Sunil Kr. Jain, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajendra Yadav, PP for the State. *** This is the fourth bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Shri Sunil Kr. Jain, Advocate on behalf of the applicant Bhupendra Singh @ Bhup pertaining to F.I.R. No. 116/2008 of police station Bansur, District Alwar, registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 452, 379 and 302 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the accused Ramotar @ Munna has already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 19th February, 2010. Similarly co-accused Abhishek @ Shekha has also been enlarged on bail by Court on 23rd April, 2010. The case of the petitioner is on a better footing then those of the two co-accused persons. The petitioner has been in custody for the last 27 months and the trial of the case is yet likely to take time, hence, he may also be granted indulgence of bail. -2- 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition on the ground that 14 prosecution witnesses have already been examined by the learned trial Court and there is ample evidence against him on record. The trial of the case is at its concluding stage, hence, the bail petition may be dismissed. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material available on record including the order dated 16th April, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions judge, Behrod, it is noticed that 14 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. As per this order, only eight witnesses are left to be examined and every effort is being made by the learned trial Court to expedite the trial, but the order-sheets recorded by the trial Court in this case reveal that since 7th May, 2010 there has been no Presiding Officer posted in the Court. The order- sheets dated 21st May, 2010, 4th June, 2010 and 5th June, 2010 suggest that the Court is not manned by any Presiding Officer for the last three months. Hence, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for the last 27 months and the court is sans Presiding Judge, I deem just and proper to direct the District & Sessions judge, Alwar to transfer this Case from the Court of Additional Sessions judge Bahrod to that Court which is manned by the Presiding officer. The Learned Sessions Judge, Alwar is directed to transfer this case within a -3- period of one week positively. After the transfer of this case, the concerned learned Additional Sessions Judge is expected to expedite the trial and to dispose of the case preferably within a period of three months from today. 6. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, I do not find any good ground to change my earlier view and thus the fourth bail petition also stands dismissed accordingly. 7. A copy of this order be sent to District Sessions Judge Alwar for his information and necessary action. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg