JAGAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present third bail application has been filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.290/2018, Police Station Jawahar Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 302, 460, 120-B of Indian Penal Code and under Ss. 3/25, 27 of Arms Act. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dtd. 11/01/2021 with the liberty to file fresh bail application after recording the statements of material prosecution witnesses before learned trial Court. Thereafter, the second bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dtd. 15/03/2022 with a direction to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial proceedings by recording the statement of material prosecution witnesses at the earliest. However, after expiry of almost one year and one month, not a single witness has been examined by learned trial Court. Learned Senior Counsel submits that as per the statement of Sajid Khan recorded under Sec. 161 CrPC, the petitioner has not been named. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that as per the CD of the CCTV Footage prepared by the police, the petitioner is not reflected in the same. He further submits that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than four years and nine months. He, therefore, prays that the bail application of the petitioner may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

(3.) This Court on earlier two occasions while rejecting the bail applications of the petitioner vide orders dtd. 11/01/2021 and 15/03/2022 respectively has specifically ordered for recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, however, till date not even a single witness has been examined by learned trial Court so far. In these circumstances, this Court after hearing learned senior counsel for the petitioner directed the Investigating Officer to remain present before this Court.