MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused -petitioner has moved this second application for grant of bail under Section 439 read with Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No. 38/2010 registered at Police Station JDA, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 120B IPC. The first application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by this Court on merit by a reasoned order dated 4.4.2013. After dismissal of the first application, charge -sheet has already been filed against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and during trial statements of some of the prosecution witnesses have already been recorded. The present application has been filed mainly on the ground that even after the lapse of prescribed period of 60 days from the date on which the case was first fixed for recording the prosecution evidence by the trial Court, the prosecution could not produce its entire evidence.

(2.) IT was submitted on behalf of the accused -petitioner that in the present case the petitioner was arrested in the year 2010 and after submission of charge -sheet, charges were framed by the trial Court on 12.4.2012 and the first date fixed for production of prosecution evidence was 25.4.2012 and since then as many as 75 dates have been fixed by the trial Court for production of prosecution evidence, but out of 60 prosecution witnesses statements of only 8 witnesses have been recorded and the statement of complainant -PW 7 is still incomplete and he is not appearing for recording of his remaining statement and cross examination since 3.7.2013. It was further submitted that 7 witnesses whose statements have been recorded by the trial Court are witnesses of the site -map only and they cannot be said to be material witnesses. It was also submitted that as the prosecution has not been able to produce its entire evidence within the period of 60 days as prescribed under Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C. and a number of witnesses are yet to be examined, the petitioner is entitled to get benefit of provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. It was also submitted that benefit of bail cannot be refused to the petitioner only on the ground that he is also involved in some other similar criminal cases.

(3.) ON the other hand it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that every efforts have been made by the prosecution and by the trial Court that statements of all the prosecution witnesses be recorded as early as possible and till date statements of 7 prosecution witnesses have been recorded and further efforts are being made by the prosecution that statements of remaining witnesses including that of the complainant may also be recorded at the earliest. It was also submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in many other similar cases. It was also submitted that the judgment relied on behalf of the petitioner is not helpful to him being based on different fact situation.