RAKESH @ RAHUL & BUNTY Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has been charged of the offence, inter alia, under Section 397 IPC, which is the only provision which prescribes the minimum sentence of seven years, the said charge is not made out because even as per the prosecution, the petitioner was not armed with any deadly weapon. For this purpose, he relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 905. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 7.4.2006. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner had earlier granted interim bail and he had surrendered on time and had not misused the facility. He further submits that all the material witnesses, other than the police officials, have been examined. However, the trial is not likely to conclude at an early date as the last witness was examined on 30.1.2006 and now about 26 witnesses who are all police witnesses, remain to be examined. He submits that in view of the fact that there are only police witnesses to be examined, there is no question of any threat or tampering with these witnesses. He, therefore, requests for grant of bail.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the State has also been heard. He could not point out any circumstance to show as to how Section 397 IPC would be applicable in the present case inasmuch as the prosecution case itself does not disclose that the petitioner was armed with a deadly weapon. Apart from this, I am of the view that the trial is taking an unduly long time and since 26 more witnesses are to be examined, it is not likely to be concluded at an early date. The petitioner has already in custody for over four months. Another factor to be noted is that it was submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner was involved in other cases. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced certified copies of orders of six cases where the petitioner has either been discharged or acquitted. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present case is the only case pending against him. The learned counsel was not in a position to controvert this fact.