SHANKER LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are accused of offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC have moved this third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. It was pointed out on the earlier occasions in this bail application that progress of the matter in trial was held up essentially because the charges against the principal accused persons namely, Ashok Jadeja, Smt. Neetu Jadeja, Shaitan Singh and Surta @ Bhutta were to be framed and they were not being produced before the Court for having been detained in custody in the State of Gujarat.

(2.) While considering this third bail application, on 22.07.2010, this Court noticed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that merely because the other accused persons were not produced before the Court for the reason that were said to be in custody in the State of Gujarat, there was no justification for detention of the petitioners in custody for indefinite time. It was also pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that they moved an application for appropriate orders for separate trial particularly when the charges had already been framed against them but this application was also kept pending with repeated adjournments to the Public Prosecutor. While expecting the Trial Court to take up the application seeking separate trial expeditiously for appropriate orders, consideration of this third bail application was deferred to 29.07.2010.

(3.) After hearing the parties on 29.07.2010, an order was passed by this Court in this third bail application on 30.07.2010. The consideration of this third bail application was further deferred until this date after noticing the fact that though the Trial Court refused to order separate trial by its order dated 28.07.2010 but, at the same time, issued positive and mandatory directions in relation to the aforesaid other accused persons for their production on 10.08.2010. While observing that unnecessary delay of trial could not be appreciated, but looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the order passed by the learned Trial Court, consideration of this third bail application was deferred to this date while extending another opportunity to the Authorities concerned to ensure appropriate steps and doing the needful for expeditious trial.